Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Luton," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT). BILLS.

Resolution of the House of the 13th day of March relative to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords of the 14th day of March signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order [12th March] that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill be committed, be read and discharged, and the said Bills be committed to the Joint Committee on Railway (Road Transport) Bills:
That all Petitions in favour of or against the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, respectively, presented on or before the 30th day of March, 1928, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bills by themselves,
their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard, and Counsel be heard in support of the Bills:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to consolidate the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill, and to consolidate the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I ought to explain to the House that this Resolution proposes to send to the Joint Committee which was set up yesterday, two Bills relating to the proposals of the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, with regard to road transport, in so far as those proposals relate to the Scottish portion of the undertakings. In pursuance of the provisions of the Scottish Procedure Act, it was necessary that the parts of these proposals relating to Scotland should be separate Bills, and they have lagged a day or two behind the English Bills dealing with the same subject. The proposals are the same, and the promoters are the same, and it is now proposed to send them to the same Committee which the House has already set up.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it, that we are to be treated in this fashion, and that no allowance will be made for the two or three days which we are behind in this matter, so that we may give these Bills proper consideration? These Bills are going to affect Scotland in a very drastic fashion, and we have had no time to look into it in order to see what is behind them. I object.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The House has already read these Bills a Second time, and they are exactly the same as the English Bills. It is now proposed to send them to the same Committee, so that they may be all considered together.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as these are purely Scottish Bills, they ought to be sent to a Committee composed of members of the Scottish Standing Committee, so that the interests of Scotland may be protected?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The Scottish Standing Committee has been set up for the consideration of public Bills. These are private Bills. They deal solely with the road transport proposals of the London, Midland and Scottish, and London and North Eastern Railway Companies, and the proposals are exactly the same as those in the English Bills. Owing to the working of the Scottish private Bills procedure, there has been a delay of a day or two, and I now propose to have the Scottish Bills and English Bills considered by the same Committee. As I have already pointed out, the House has given a Second Reading to the Bills, and the only question which arises now is the question of their committal.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, is he certain that Scottish objectors will have the same right of appearance by counsel and otherwise, on these Bills, as other objectors? When the original proposals were before us, there was some dubiety on that point. The second point is, that there is some anxiety among Scottish Members lest there should be no Scottish representation on the Committee which considers these Bills. If we can get any assurance that the question of Scottish representation will be considered, and if the rights of Scottish objectors are secured, I have no objection.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: In regard to the hon. Member's first point about the rights of objectors, those rights cannot possibly be denied to them. These are separate Bills and may be objected to from Scotland or from anywhere else if the petitioner has a locus. As regards Scottish representation on the Committee, that is no affair of mine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a great pity that these Bills cannot be sent to a Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh?

Question put, and agreed to.

Order [12th March] that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport,
Scotland) Bill be committed, read and discharged; Bills committed to the Joint Committee on Railway (Road Transport) Bills."

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered,
That all Petitions in favour of or against the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, respectively, presented on or before the 30th day of March, 1928, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bills by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard, and Counsel be heard in support of the Bills:

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to consolidate the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill, and to consolidate the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (R. STRAND BLACKBURN).

Mr. ROBINSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will cause a life pension to be granted to Mr. R. Strand, of 79, Cleaver Street, Blackburn, who was discharged with 100 per cent. pension in June, 1916, was from 10th November, 1918, to January, 1925, either in hospital or undergoing out-patient treatment, and now, after nearly 12 years, is in receipt of a conditional pension assessed at 70 per cent. for 12 months and until further instructions?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member may be assured that a final award will be made as soon as I am medically advised that such an award will be compatible with the man's condition. This has not hitherto been found to be the case.

FORMS.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the multiplicity of forms which war pensioners are required to fill up, his Department will devise methods of procedure which will allow as many as possible of them to be dispensed with?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member has, I think, been misinformed. A pensioner is not required, for the purpose of drawing his pension, to fill up more than two forms in a year, with one extra form once in five years, and these forms are solely for the purpose of establishing his continued existence and identity as the recipient of a grant from public funds.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware from his own experience that the men who have to fill up these forms are bewildered by them?

Major TRYON: No, I aware that any man, if he has a bona fide right to a pension, would be bewildered by them.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him some examples?

Major TRYON: Certainly, but the hon. Member must not forget that it was at the express desire of the Public Accounts Committee of this House, and in order to secure the public funds, that these very necessary forms were sent out. They are so designed as to offer no difficulty to anybody except the dishonest person.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT (W. HENDERSON).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mr. W. Henderson enlisted in His Majesty's Navy during the War and was classed A1 on his entry; that he was discharged as suffering from tuberculosis and advised by his doctor to go to Canada for his health, which he did; that he was compelled to return because of the disease and is now in a sanatorium; and that a pension has been refused to him on the grounds of the seven years' limit; and if he will have this case reconsidered?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is mistaken in suggesting that Mr. Henderson was discharged suffering from tuberculosis, and as he has already been informed, the case has been very fully
considered on its merits by the Ministry in the light of all the available evidence. I regret, however, that, apart altogether from the date of Mr. Henderson's first application, the circumstances were not found to be such as to justify a grant from public funds.

METHOD OF PAYMENT.

Captain FRASER: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has in contemplation any changes in the method of paying war pensions; what those changes are and when they will be introduced; what classes of pensioners will be affected; what objects he hopes to achieve by the changes; and whether the ex-service men's associations have been consulted?

Major TRYON: An important change in the method of payment of war pensions will come into operation next week. The pensioners affected will be all those whose pensions are paid weekly through the Post Office, namely, those of disabled men, their widows and dependants. The central feature of the new system of payment will be the discontinuance of identity certificates, or ring papers. These documents will be surrendered to the Postmaster for cancellation and withdrawal, and the pensioner will receive instead a book of orders on presentation of which payment will thenceforth be made each week at the appropriate post office. The new system will be essentially the same as that already in use for old age pensions and for widows' contributory pensions. It is estimated that a substantial reduction in administrative costs will be secured by the extension of this system to war pensions, but, while the object in view has been uniformity and economy in administration, I am satisfied that pensioners will find the new arrangements simple and convenient. The ex-service representatives on the standing joint committee, and a representative of St. Dunstan's have been consulted on this aspect of the matter and have expressed their approval of the change. No change is at present contemplated in the arrangements for paying the pensions of officers or nurses or of officers' widows or dependants.

Captain FRASER: How many men and widows are affected?

Major TRYON: All the beneficiaries of the Ministry—who number about 1,250,000—are affected, except officers and nurses, so that the number would be one approaching 1,250,000.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: In what way would it be uneconomical to decentralise the issue?

Major TRYON: It would be uneconomical to decentralise the issue, because it would mean having 47 offices doing the work which is at present done by one office, because it would mean a serious increase in overhead charges, and, because it would mean a triangular correspondence between a central office, 46 local offices, and 21,000 post-offices. Therefore, from every point of view, including that of the pensioner, the suggestion which has been made from the other side of the House is undesirable.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of the ex-service men's associations have been consulted?

Major TRYON: Members of the British Legion are on the standing joint committee and were consulted in this matter, and they are entirely in favour of the change.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Would not the decentralisation of the issue mean the dispersal of the staff at Acton, which would involve great hardship to those concerned?

Major TRYON: It would undoubtedly mean hardship to the staff at Acton.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Apart from the publicity which the Minister's present announcement will have, are steps being taken to make known this change?

Major TRYON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his question, which gives me the opportunity of stating that we are sending full particulars of the change to the Press; and I have also arranged with the British Broadcasting Company for an announcement to be made on Friday and Saturday nights of this week. The new method comes into force next Monday.

MOTHER'S PENSION (MR. DEVLIN, GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mrs.
Devlin, 55, Sandyfaulds Street, Glasgow, had a pension granted to her for the death of her son on active service in 1917 of 15s. 6d. a week, based on the weekly income earned by the late soldier of 26s. a week; that over six years afterwards the pension was reduced from 15s. 6d. to 4s. 10d. a week, as it was thought that the wage was only 16s. 6d.; that the parents on oath deny the last-named estimate; that no proof has so far been given of the lesser wage; that the reason now given has been altered to one of a mistake in calculating the value of the wage; and if he will take steps to have the original pension restored?

Major TRYON: The pension originally granted in this case was based upon an unverified statement by the soldier that his weekly earnings were 25s. When the case was reviewed, a certificate, under statutory authority, was obtained from the employers showing that the man's earnings averaged 16s. 7d. a week. For the purpose of assessing pre-War dependence, regard had necessarily to be paid to the average value of the benefit regularly received by the parent from the son's payments over a reasonably long period. There has been no alteration in the grounds upon which the Ministry had to act when reviewing the pension, which has had throughout to be based upon the wages earned by the son and the value of support received by the parent. On the information before me, I should have no justification for increasing the present rate of pre-War dependence pension.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Even assuming that the wage of 26s. a week was incorrect, what justification is there for decreasing this pension from 15s. 6d. to 4s. 10d. a week?

Major TRYON: Of course, if a question of need arises, the case can be reconsidered: but, on the point raised by the hon. Member, it is not possible to contend that the late soldier, out of an average earnings of 16s. 7d., would have contributed 15s. 6d. in support of his parents.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that the officials of the Ministry have done is to consult the employers six years after the pension was originally fixed, that the parents still think they should receive
the original sum, and that the Ministry have no right to cast aspersions on their estimate of the late soldier's earnings?

Major TRYON: Inquiries were fully made into this matter, and it was ascertained that the average earnings were 16s. 7d. a week, and the calculation is based on that.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: What justification or what evidence is there for assuming that the young man earning that amount did not contribute it to his parents?

Major TRYON: Here is a man whose wages are estimated at 16s. 7d.—

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Major TRYON: —and it is obvious that such a man could not contribute 15s. 6d. beyond his own keep for the upkeep of his parents. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that we are in general in these cases—and rightly so—allowing more than the sons would have been able to contribute.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If this boy had lived for a few more years, would he not have been earning a much bigger wage?

Major TRYON: It is the case that there are five surviving brothers, and their contributions to the support of their parents are almost negligible.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is smart, but is something not due in fairness to this dead soldier, he having stated that his wage was 25s. 7d. a week, and his mother being prepared to state, on oath, that she has never been consulted in the matter? Is it not the case that all that has been done is, six years afterwards, to consult the books of this firm, though it might be any Devlin who earned this sum and not this boy at all?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member can produce any evidence, I shall be very happy to consider it. If it be a question of need, then, on the ground of need, it might be possible to give more, but, on actual wages earned, that is the information which we have, and until we have any evidence to the contrary we cannot alter the pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

VIGILANCE WORK (WOMEN OFFICERS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to consider that, instead of increasing the number of women police, he will recommend the employment of women to act as vigilance officers, not wearing police uniform, as a better means to effect the duties required of them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am considering all practicable methods of working and do not wish to arrive at a final decision without the fullest consideration.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the evidence given by the Secretary of the National Vigilance Association to the Committee appointed by himself, in which he said that the work of prevention was carried on far better by women who are not in uniform than by uniformed policemen?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I have had my attention called to that evidence, and it is being considered along with the other facts accordingly.

PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 16.
asked the Home Secretary what is the practice obtaining in the payment of police pensions in London and the provinces so that in a leap year the pensioner shall not lose one day's pension; whether he has made any rule or regulation or issued a Home Office circular covering this point; and, if not, whether he will consider advising a uniform practice of payment of either an extra day's pension once every four years or 365¼ days' pension each year?

Sir W. JOYNSON-H1CKS: Under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, pensions are calculated as fractions of annual pay, and annual pay is defined by the Act for the purpose as 52 times weekly pay in the case of police paid weekly. There is therefore no power to increase a pension in leap year. In the case, however, of those officers who elected in 1921 to retain the scale of ordinary pensions under the Police Act, 1890, it is the practice to allow the leap year fraction, and in 1923 my predecessor recommended
county and borough police authorities to take the same course in similar cases in their forces.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases of county and borough police forces where that rule is not being observed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will send me any cases, I will see into them, but it will depend rather whether the officers elected to come under the Act of 1921.

COUNTRYSIDE ADVERTISEMENTS (REGULATION).

Sir R. THOMAS: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that local authorities are doing little to avail themselves of the powers conferred upon them during the life of the present Parliament to check the progressive disfigurement of the countryside by advertisements, petrol stations, etc.; and whether he will issue a circular to local authorities about this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member does the local authorities some injustice. Forty-one out of 63 county councils have made byelaws under the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1925, which is a very satisfactory proportion. I do not consider that any circular is required. As regards the disfigurement of the countryside by petrol stations, I do not know of any powers which have been given either by this or by any previous Parliament for dealing with the matter, but I believe there is a private Bill before the House at the present time.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman support that private Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must wait and hear what the arguments are.

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that these petrol stations serve a very useful purpose for a very large section of the community?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, but they are more useful than ornamental.

Captain BRASS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter of opinion, and we cannot take up Question Time with hearing opinions.

WORKMEN' S COMPENSATION.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the total sum which can be awarded to a widow and her young children as compensation for the death of the husband and father under the Workmen's Compensation Act is £600, the Courts are awarding injured workmen much larger sums in settlement of claims for partial disablement; and whether he will take steps to amend the Act so as to secure a fairer provision for the widow and young children where the breadwinner is killed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that in certain cases of disablement the workman has received a lump sum exceeding the maximum of £600 payable in cases of death, but this does not show that the maximum is unfair or afford any ground for raising it. I cannot hold out any expectation of amending legislation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the workman involved in the Yorkshire Coal-owners' Industry Company v. Lovett case was seriously prejudiced as a result of the now admitted irregularity of notice as per Section 14 of the Compensation Act, 1923, and that compensation was withheld from 11th November, 1926, until October, 1927; and will he state whether adequate reparation has been made to the workman?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who investigated the case, that from 20th November, 1926, up to 26th October, 1927, the workman had his weekly payment reduced from 30s. to 15s., but that this was rectified on the latter date, when the Judge directed that the weekly payment should be made up to 30s. over the whole of that period.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Did the company make any reparation to this man, who was deprived of his compensation for a lengthy period, and who, incidentally, was prejudiced from obtaining employment which otherwise was possible?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Reparation has been paid in full. Beyond that, it is entirely a question between the company and the workman.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the withholding of compensation for eight months was due to an irregularity on the part of the indemnity company, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that they ought to have made some more reparation than the legal claim to which he was entitled?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think so. It is merely an instance of anybody who is damnified not being paid at the time he ought to be paid, and there is no compensation in law recoverable for non-payment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY INSPECTION.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. COMPTON: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether paragraph 5 of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1928, No. 84, which requires the provision of adequate means of escape in case of fire from buildings in which stripping or drying cinematograph film is done, is enforced by inspectors of factories; and, if so, whether he will consider the question of making the regulation applicable to all places by deleting the sub-paragraph exempting premises within the administrative county of London?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The exemption referred to in the second part applies only to factories or workshops forming part of a building from all parts of which means of escape can be required under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act of 1905. The Factory Inspectors will, of course, co-operate with the council by notifying any cases within the council's jurisdiction where they find that the means of escape are inadequate or are not maintained in proper condition.

Mr. COMPTON: In view of the fact that the majority of this stripping is done in London, does the right hon. Gentleman consider the Order adequate, in dealing with many parts of the country, and leaving London in this unsatisfactory state?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is all right. I have not found any fire which could have been avoided by the Regulations, or any fire in which the Regulations have not been carried out, but, if the hon. Member has any further information, I shall be very glad to consider it.

ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES.

Mr. KELLY: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Home Office has received any Reports as to the conditions of health of workpeople employed in artificial silk factories; and, if so, will he make known to the House his decision on these Reports?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received reports by the medical and other Inspectors of Factories who have been visiting these works. It appears from those reports that the conditions generally are satisfactory but cases of conjunctivitis have occurred at one or two works, and there have also been some cases of dermatitis. Suitable precautions are being taken in each case and the hon. Member may be assured that the conditions will continue to receive the special attention of the medical staff.

Mr. KELLY: Have the reports been received as affecting Messrs. Courtaulds, the Spondon Factory of British Celanese, and the Belfast Factory?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before I answer on definite cases, the hon. Member must give me notice.

PROSECUTIONS, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 21.
asked the Home Secretary the total number of prosecutions which have taken place on the instruction of the factory inspector in Glasgow and district during the past year; the number in which a conviction was secured; and the number in which appeal was made to a higher Court?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of prosecutions taken by the factory inspectors in the Glasgow and Lanarkshire factory districts—in which the City of Glasgow is comprised—was 64; in 55 of these cases a conviction was obtained. In no case was there any appeal.

DRUNKENNESS, LONDON (STATISTICS).

Mr. BRIANT: 14.
asked the Home Secretary if he will give the number of proceedings for drunkenness and convictions for drunkenness, male and female, in the Metropolitan police district and the City of London for the calendar years 1918 to 1927, inclusive?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All available figures in this connection are published annually in the Volumes of Licensing Statistics, the latest of which is for the year 1926. As several columns of figures are involved, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Proceedings and Convictions for Drunkenness in the Metropolitan Police Disitrict and City of London during the years 1918 to 1926.


Year.
Metropolitan Police District.*
City of London.


Proceedings.
Convictions.
Proceedings.
Convictions.


Male.
Female.
Total.
Male.
Female.
Total.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)


1918
…
…
…
11,358
6,690
3,211
9,901
294
194
 44
238


1919
…
…
…
23,683
15,486
5,188
20,674
446
322
57
379


1920
…
…
…
33,185
23,581
6,375
29,956
491
399
44
443


1921
…
…
…
30,091
21,916
5,494
27,410
416
329
49
378


1922
…
…
…
33,912
24,389
6,410
30,799
557
432
102
534


1923
…
…
…
32,983
23,414
6,610
30,024
498
396
70
466


1924
…
…
…
33,018
23,512
6,536
30,048
426
332
57
389


1925
…
…
…
32,900
23,197
6,384
29,581
442
334
60
394


1926
…
…
…
32,010
22,631
6,226
28,857
388
269
48
317


* This district consists of the Counties of London and Middlesex and parts of the Counties of Essex, Hertford, Surrey and Kent, including the County Boroughs of East Ham, West Ham and Croydon.

As regards the year 1927, the figures are not yet completely compiled, but I can give provisional figures as follows: In the Metropolitan police district the total number of proceedings was 30,123, leading to 21,177 convictions of males and 5,977 of females, and in the City of London the figures were 411, 293 and 84 respectively.

FIREARMS.

Mr. HAYES: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the following cases: at Sheffield Police Court on the 20th February, 1928, when a youth, 19 years of age, previously convicted

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures show an increase or a decrease in convictions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the reply tomorrow morning.

Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: Has there been any decrease since the right hon. Gentleman came into office?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures will show the hon. and gallant Member what he wants to know.

Following is the reply:

of gun stealing, was discharged in respect of an alleged offence against the Firearms Act, 1920, on the grounds that the Colt revolver, the rifling of which had been removed by drilling, was a smooth-bore weapon; at North London Police Court on the 6th March, 1928, when a convict was charged with failing to report, a life preserver and so-called toy pistol was found in his possession; at the Sussex Assizes, on the 7th March, 1928, when a man was charged with holding up a post office and alleged to have fired at the postmistress with a toy pistol that fired only blank ammunition; and at Wigan Police Court, on the 8th March, 1928, when a man was convicted
of being in possession of a revolver without having a certificate for same, which revolver had originally been a toy one but had been converted into a lethal weapon; and whether, in the interests of public security, he proposes to take any action to restrict further the manufacture, importation and sale of such weapons as are capable of being used for unlawful purposes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I replied to a question by the hon. Member only yesterday that legislation would be necessary to effect any change in the law regarding firearms. I can only add that I will consider the whole question seriously.

Mr. HAYES: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this matter, does he not think that a suitable, friendly word to the wise in the trade might be of great help in restricting the sale of these weapons to people who are converting them into lethal weapons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no doubt the trade will see the hon. Member's observation, but the difficulty is that, if I give advice to the trade, the hon. Member or his colleagues may call me over the coals for acting beyond my authority.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the trade may sell weapons in London, which may be bought by perfectly innocent persons, who may, on arrival in Liverpool, owing to the good sense of the stipendiary magistrate there, be arrested for possessing firearms?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I suppose that is the case.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (ROAD SCOUTS).

Mr. HAYES: 18.
asked the Home Secretary the arrangements of which he has approved whereby police or other authorities utilise the services of road scouts of automobile organisations in substitution for those of local police in directing traffic; whether such arrangements provide for the reimbursement in whole or in part of the cost incurred; and, if so, whether the pay and conditions of service have been reviewed by his Department before sanctioning such arrangements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Under the arrangement to which the hon. Member refers, the Royal Automobile Club provide uniformed men to direct traffic within specified hours and are paid by the police authority at a fixed rate, I think £150 per annum for each man. Where the arrangement has been approved this payment ranks as police expenditure for purposes of the Exchequer Grant. I do not review the conditions of service of the men who are so employed.

Mr. HAYES: Is the whole of the money which is paid for the maintenance of this service given to the men employed in it; and are the men responsible to the police authorities or to their own organisation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The arrangement is one between the local authorities and the Royal Automobile Club; as I understand it, a sum of money is paid to the club itself. The men are not under police jurisdiction, but under the jurisdiction of the club. This has only been done in a very few cases as an experiment, and it is at present being very carefully watched.

Mr. HAYES: Is the arrangement made subject to the 50 per cent. Exchequer grant?

Captain BRASS: Would my right hon. Friend consider using the police for regulating traffic, instead of using them to work police traps?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend needs so much regulation. If he will give me his personal undertaking to abide by the regulations and the law, I will see if I can avoid them.

Captain BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a clean licence over many years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should only the Royal Automobile Club's servants be used, and not the scouts of the Automobile Association?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that the Royal Automobile Club is the only one of the two bodies that have offered to make these arrangements.

Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he never exceeds 20 miles per hour?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I can give that assurance absolutely, as my duties are so heavy that I have long ceased to drive personally.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education what number of new schools were erected under the sanction of his Department for the years 1925 to 1927, inclusive, and the approximate total cost of them?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The number of new schools and institutions which, according to the information available at the Board, were completed during the three calendar years in question were 75, 98, and 137, and the approximate cost, including that of the sites, was £845,089, £1,780,708, and £2,842,972 in the three years, respectively. In addition, there were completed during this period 51 schools, the cost of which was met by voluntary funds and cannot be stated.

Commander WILLIAMS: How does this compare with the four previous years?

Lord E. PERCY: I must have notice of that question.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is this in addition to the large extensions that have been carried out in many schools?

Lord E. PERCY: I think so, but I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. ADAMSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total number of schools now listed by his Department as unsatisfactory for educational purposes; and the number for which plans have been approved for remodelling or rebuilding?

Lord E. PERCY: The number of schools in the category referred to by the hon. Member has now been reduced from 679 (the number listed in 1925) to 544. Plans
for dealing with 117 of these have been already approved, and in a number of other cases plans have been received and are under consideration.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the noble Lord try to facilitate the modernising of those schools where it is now overdue?

Lord E. PERCY: I think that I am giving all the assistance and employing all the pressure in my power.

Commander WILLIAMS: Does the advancement made during the last three years show a greater progress as compared with the previous three years?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, certainly.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the President satisfied with the progress?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a general question like that.

TEACHERS.

Mr. SHORT: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of certificated and uncertificated teachers, respectively, employed during 1927?

Lord E. PERCY: On the 31st March, 1927, the numbers of certificated and uncertificated teachers employed in public elementary schools in England and Wales were 119,859 and 33,485, respectively.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does that show an increase or a decrease over the previous year?

Lord E. PERCY: An increase.

Mr. SHORT: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any available information as to the number of trained certificated teachers who were unable to find posts during 1927?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer to this question can be most conveniently given in statistical form, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the attempt to raise the school age due to the fact that there are a large number of surplus teachers?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise here.

Following is the answer:

The figures returned by the Training Colleges of the teaching posts obtained by December, 1927, by the students who left College in July, 1926, are as follow:—


Types of College.
England.
Wales.
Total.




Total leavers.
No information.
Obtained posts.
Did not obtain posts.
Total leavers.
No information.
Obtained posts.
Did not obtain posts.
Total leavers.
No information.
Obtained posts.
Did not obtain posts.


1. University and University College T.Ds.
Number
1,573
156
1,323
94
284
6
236
42
1,857
162
1,559
136


Per cent.
—
9.9
84.1
6.0
—
2.1
83.1
14.8
—
8.7
84.0
7.3


2. L.E.A. Colleges
Number
1,437
13
1,388
36
372
—
341
31
1,809
13
1,729
67


Percent.
—
0.9
96.6
2.5
—
—
91.7
8.3
—
0.7
95.6
3.7


3. Other Colleges
Number
3,313
60
3,201
52
118
—
115
3
3,431
60
3,316
55


Per cent.
—
1.8
96.6
1.6
—
—
97.5
2.5
—
1.8
96.6
1.6


4. D.S. Colleges
Number
202
16
158
28
14
—
11
3
216
16
169
31


Per cent.
—
7.9
78.2
13.9
—
—
78.6
21.4
—
7.4
78.2
14.4


5. Total—All types
Number
6,525
245
6,070
210
788
6
703
79
7,313
251
6,773
289


Per cent.
—
3.8
93.0
3.2
—
0.8
89.2
10.0
—
3.4
92.6
4.0

The figures returned by the Training Colleges of the teaching posts obtained by December, 1927, by the students who left College in July, 1927, are as follow:—


1. University and University College T.Ds.
Number
1,518
152
1,088
278
304
7
198
99
1,822
159
1,286
377


Per cent.
—
l0.0
71.7
18.3
—
2.3
65.1
32.6
—
8.7
70.6
20.7


2. L.E.A. Colleges
Number
1,588
29
1,325
234
340
15
194
131
1,928
44
1,519
365


Per cent.
—
1.8
83.5
14.7
—
4.4
57.1
38.5
—
2.3
78.8
18.9


3. Other Colleges
Number
3,330
69
2,998
263
109
6
75
28
3,439
75
3,073
291


Per cent.
—
2.1
90.0
7.9
—
5.5
68.8
25.7
—
2.2
89.3
8.5


4. Domestic Subjects T.Cs.
Number
202
6
163
33
23
—
8
15
225
6
171
48


Per cent.
—
3.0
80.7
16.3
—
—
34.8
65.2
—
2.7
76.0
21.3


5. Total-All types
Number
6,638
256
5,574
808
776
28
475
273
7,414
284
6,049
1,081


Per cent.
—
3.8
84.0
12.2
—
3.6
61.2
35.2
—
3.8
81.6
14.6

NEW SCHOOL, SOUTH WOODHAM.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the school children at South Woodham, in Essex, have to cross the River Crouch by boat, and have to wait about in all weathers for a boat to take them across to the school at Hockley, he will expedite the building of a school in South Woodham?

Lord E. PERCY: I understand that the local authority are already negotiating for the purchase of a site for a new school at South Woodham, and I shall be glad to do anything I can to assist them in the matter. I am sending them a copy of my hon. and gallant Friend's question and my reply.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Would the Noble Lord do his best to expedite the building of this school before next winter?

Lord E. PERCY: I am doing everything in my power, but it is for the local authority to do it, and they are moving.

STATISTICS.

Mr. SHORT: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of elementary school children, 14 years of age, who left school during 1926 and 1927, respectively?

Lord E. PERCY: Excluding those pupils who proceeded to secondary schools or other institutions for further full-time education, the number of pupils who left public elementary schools maintained by local authorities at 14 years of age and over (including pupils who left at the end of the term preceding the holiday period during which they became 14) during the years 1926 and 1927 were 549,866 and 510,542, respectively. Of these, about 61,000 in 1925–26 and about 64,000 in 1926–27 had remained at school for a period after reaching the normal age of exemption.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education what, for each educational area, is the percentage of ex-public elementary school pupils in 1925–26 and, if possible, 1926–27 proceeding to secondary schools, central schools, junior technical and trade schools, and other full-time courses in other technical institutes and polytechnics,
respectively, to the number of pupils in public elementary schools of the ages of 10 to 11 years?

Lord E. PERCY: The particulars asked for will take some little time to put together, but I will send the hon. Member as soon as possible such information as can be given.

HENRY SMITH (CONVICTION).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the recent conviction of Henry Smith by the Tower Division Petty Sessions for letting his son, aged 15 years, continue in a situation instead of compelling him to go to a special school; and whether he will have the boy's alleged mental deficiency further investigated?

Lord E. PERCY: This case has not come before my Department and I am not acquainted with the details. Under the provisions of Section 56 (5) of the Education Act, 1921, the parent can claim to have the boy examined by the local authority with a view to ascertaining if he is still mentally defective, provided that he has not been so examined during the previous six months.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is infinitely better both in mind and body for this boy to be mixing with normal people and earning his living than to be mixed up with other sub-normal boys? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that this boy was paying his mother 12s. a week out of his wages, and is it not a great hardship that a father with 10 children should be deprived of assistance from this source?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer is that I have no information, except such as I have seen in the Press. I think my hon. and learned Friend has got his information from the same source. I do not know whether those facts are correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

FEEDING TESTS (CREAM).

Mr. HURD: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education, if he will give the latest results of tests of feeding school-children upon full cream liquid milk?

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps I may refer my hon. Friend to the Reports of the Board's Chief Medical Officer for 1923 (pages 119–120), 1924 (pages 132–133), and 1925 (pages 116–118). The last of these gives the results of the investigations conducted by Dr. Corry Mann at the suggestion of the Ministry of Health and the Medical Research Council.

Mr. HURD: Have there not been later invest igations?

Lord E. PERCY: No. I believe an investigation is being carried out now by the Scottish Education Department, but not, so far as I know, by education authorities in England.

INFANT MORTALITY (HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that for the quarter ending December, 1927, the infantile mortality rate in the urban district of Houghton-le-Spring reached the figure of 210 per thousand births; that in the month of October it was over 300 per thousand, and for January of the present year it was 210; is he aware that the medical officer of health and the district council are satisfied that such is due to insufficient nourishment for mothers and babies due to their impoverished condition; and what, if any, proposals he has made to remedy this state of affairs?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. The official figures supplied by the Registrar-General show that for the quarter ended December, 1927, the infant mortality rate for the urban district of Houghtonle-Spring was 152. There are no official figures for this district for separate months, and I would point out that in a district with such a small population very slight variations in the numbers of births or infantile deaths result in such substantial differences in the monthly infant mortality rate as to render them of little value for purposes of comparison. As regards the last two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Major Ropner).

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the medical
officer of health has given the, figures from October until February and that there is little or no diminution, that he says it is the highest death-rate that has ever been recorded in Houghton-le-Spring, and that he is certain it is because of the under-feeding of mothers and children?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is merely a repetition of the question, but I would point out to the hon. Member that in an area with so small a population as this the addition of one death means an addition of 50 per 1,000 in the mortality rate.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Why should there be this one death?

DIPHTHERIA.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a circular to all local authorities pointing out that, in view of the difficulty of diagnosing diphtheria and the desirability of immediate treatment, it is advisable for medical practitioners to notify suspicious cases without waiting for the results of bacteriological examination, even though, as a consequence of this practice, a percentage of cases eventually prove to be non-diphtheritic?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The difficulty in giving effect to the suggestion of my hon. Friend is that the obligation on medical practitioners under the Infectious Disease (Notification) Acts is to notify patients actually suffering from infectious diseases. I could not accordingly issue such a circular as he suggests without an alteration of the law.

RUBBISH, RURAL AREAS.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he now has in contemplation legislative or other means whereby local authorities can levy a partial rate for the purpose of dealing with the growing nuisance of rubbish of all kinds which at present in most country districts remains untended and unburied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has been noted for consideration in connection with possible amendment of the Public Health Acts.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this nuisance is very serious indeed, seeing how large a part of the food of the people is contained in tins or in bottles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that this is a matter requiring attention, but I think both district councils and parish councils might do something by using their influence to secure the removal of this nuisance.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what powers parish councils have?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The power to use their influence—and that depends on the members.

GOVERNMENT LYMPH.

Mr. GROVES: 41.
asked the Minister of Health where the calves are procured which are used in connection with the production of lymph at the Hendon factory; and how are they disposed of after they have been inoculated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The calves used at the Government Lymph Establishment in connection with the production of vaccine lymph are hired from a contractor. As regards the rest of the question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 24th November, 1927.

INSANITY (STATISTICS).

Mr. SNELL: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether, since 16th June, 1927, it has been found possible to bring the statistics of insanity up to date; and whether he can now give the number of married inmates of lunatic asylums who have been certified for more than five years, and of those who have been in asylums for 10 years and upwards?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report of the Board of Control issued annually contains comprehensive and up-to-date statistics in great variety. But as I explained to the hon. Member in my reply of the 16th June, 1927, the preparation of the particular return to which he refers would involve an examination of the registers of all the public mental hospitals, and I did not feel justified in calling for this. The statistics referred to in the second part of the question are not, therefore, available.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. GREENWOOD: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed of a resolution passed on 28th February, at a meeting of 600 representatives of local authorities and voluntary societies in touch with the problem of maternal mortality, at which attention was called to the urgent need for medical inquiry into all deaths due to childbirth, further training and experience in midwifery as a preliminary to general practice in medicine, the appointment of an official committee to advise upon the whole question of the training and employment of midwives, action to induce local authorities to make their maternity services adequate, the readjustment and extension of national health insurance so that medical and midwifery services should be available for mothers both for ante-natal care and during and after confinement; and whether, in view of the fact that 3,000 mothers die in childbirth annually and many are injured, he can see his way to taking immediate action on the lines suggested by the conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I had already had these matters under consideration in connection with the recent Report issued by my Department on the "Protection of Motherhood," and I am taking the necessary action to give effect to the recommendations contained in that Report on the first four points mentioned in the question. As regards the health insurance point, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DISTRESS COMMITTEES.

Mr. BLUNDELL: 32.
asked the Minister of Health how many distress committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, are now functioning?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest information in my possession, two distress committees are now functioning in the sense that they are active in the provision of work for the unemployed. One other committee incurred a small expenditure for this purpose in
1926–27. Three incurred during the year 1926–27 some expenditure (usually of small amount) in assisting emigration, and one other committee is understood to be commencing work of this nature.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are those figures confined to England, or do they include Sootland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think these figures are for England only.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say in which two districts these distress committees are operating?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, the two functioning are in Bournemouth and Leicester; the one which incurred expenditure is in Norwich; the three which assisted emigration are Smethwick, Wallasey and Birmingham; and the one which is understood to be commencing the work of emigration is Manchester.

Mr. BATEY: Did I understand the Minister to say Bournemouth?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Minister say whether the Central Unemployed Body for London is functioning?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not on my list.

Mr. LANSBURY: But is it functioning? I did not ask whether it was on the list.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member give me notice of that question?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 33.
asked the Minister of Health how many approved societies have been compelled to abandon their schemes of additional benefits through lack of funds, temporarily or otherwise, since the results of the last valuation were declared; and the approximate number of insured persons covered by those societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No approved society has been compelled through lack of funds to abandon its whole scheme of additional benefits, but about 100 societies (covering a total membership of between
three and four million insured persons) which have included dental and ophthalmic benefits in their schemes, have found that the demand for those benefits amongst their members has so far exceeded the expectation that the amounts allocated to the benefits for a particular year have been exhausted before the end of the year, and they have consequently been obliged to defer the authorisation of claims until the beginning of the following year, when further money became available. In nearly every case the authorisation of claims for the benefits has now been resumed.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would not the balances of the various societies he improved if the doctors were placed in a more independent position and able to exercise independent judgment as to men continuing on the panel or coming off it?

Miss WILKINSON: Can the Minister say how many societies would not have been in this difficulty if it had riot been for his raid on the surplus?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What the hon Member calls a "raid" had no effect whatsoever on the situation.

DENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that complaints are made by members of some approved societies against the provision imposed upon them that they must attend dental clinics during working hours, with the consequent loss of wages; and whether he will take steps to remove this requirement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The conditions under whih insured persons may receive dental benefit as an additional benefit from their approved societies are governed by the schemes of additional benefits adopted by those societies. All such schemes contain a provision that the insured person is to have freedom of choice of dentist from amongst dentists who are willing to provide treatment on the scale of fees adopted by the society. It would, therefore, be improper for a society to require a member to attend for treatment at a dental clinic if he would prefer to obtain his treatment elsewhere. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any case in which such a requirement is imposed, I will look into the matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some societies under Section 26 of the National Health Insurance Act have established separate institutions and are giving dental treatment through clinics to their members making it a condition that dental benefit cannot be provided otherwise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the effect of my answer is that if any member prefers to obtain treatment from some other dentist rather than from the dental clinic he has a right to do so, and I would ask the hon. Member to give me particulars of any cases where such a choice has been refused.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communications from his constituents about this matter?

Mr. GERALD HURST: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act are to be deprived of their free choice of dental attendant, of the advantages of private treatment, and to be given institutional treatment at clinics in lieu thereof?

Mr. EDMUND WOOD: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to set up dental clinics under the National Health Insurance Bill; and, if so, whether this will in any way affect the right of the insured contributor to choose his own dental attendant?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Approved societies are not at present empowered to establish dental clinics for the provision of dental treatment for their members, but some societies are of opinion that in large industrial centres the setting-up of dental clinics might be attended with some advantages. The question has been very fully considered by the Dental Benefit Joint Committee, which is composed equally of representatives of the dental profession and of approved societies of all types, and that Committee has recommended that in order to test the desirability of this form of treatment one or more experimental clinics should be set up. Under the National Health Insurance Bill now before the House, provision has accordingly been included which would enable this to be done, subject to regulations which would have to be laid before Parliament. There is, however, no intention of making it compulsory
upon any insured person to obtain his treatment in a clinic if he would prefer to be treated by a private practitioner, and I am satisfied that freedom of choice of dentist must be retained as a cardinal principle in any arrangements that may be made.

Colonel APPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that where clinics have been illegally established, they will now be abolished?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are no illegally established dental clinics.

SICKNESS BENEFIT (WOMEN EMPLOYÉS).

Dr. DAVIES: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many employers refuse to allow insured women employés to remain at work during the late months of pregnancy; and if under these conditions such women are granted sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance Regulations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that some employers do not allow their women employés to remain at work when in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Any such rule of her employer does not in itself entitle an insured women to sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance Act, but if she can produce medical evidence, to the satisfaction of her approved society, that she is incapable of work, she would be entitled to benefit.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is causing very great difficulty among medical officers, doctors, and approved societies, and could he not include this class of case in the National Health Insurance Bill which he is going to bring before the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is another question on this subject on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF, PONTYPRIDD AND MERTHYR TYDVIL.

Mr. G. HALL: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of able-bodied men and women who applied for relief to the Pontypridd and Merthyr Tydvil Bcards of Guardians during 1927;
the number who were given relief and the cost; the number who were offered the institution; and the number who refused to accept?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This information is not available from the returns supplied to me, and the records of the guardians do not enable it to be readily given. I have, however, communicated with the clerks to the guardians mentioned in the question and will send the hon. Member a note of the information which I have received.

WEST HAM GUARDIANS (SALARIED STAFF).

Mr. GROVES: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, under the West Ham Guardians, relief committee clerks, present members of the salaried staff, perform the work previously executed voluntarily by the members of the old board; whether he is aware that the clerks referred to receive 7s. 6d. per committee attended, and that some attend two or more committees weekly; whether he is aware that the amount incurred for such work totals £400 per annum; whether he will state whether such amount was included in the cost of administration of the present board; and, if not, under what heading is this expenditure shown?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This information is not in my possession, but I will make inquiries and communicate in due course with the hon. Member.

RELIEF STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of persons who were in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st March, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total numbers of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales (excluding lunatics in asylums, casuals and persons receiving domiciliary medical relief only), on the Saturdays nearest to the 1st March in the years 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928 were 1,114,000, 1,266,000, 1,286,000 and 1,203,000.

CASUAL WARDS (STONE-BREAKING).

Mr. GRUNDY: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether medical advice will be obtained as to the, diet to be supplied to vagrants in the casual wards where stone-breaking has been introduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The dietaries were reconsidered in 1925, with the knowledge that stone-breaking was a task which casuals might be called upon to perform.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the dietary that is supplied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; it is not necessary to do that; it is contained in the Casual Relief Order, 1924.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect Members of the House to carry around with them the Orders which his Department issues? Are not we entitled to ask that they should be made available to us?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not expect hon. Members to carry this Order about with them, but, if the hon. Gentleman is not familiar with it, I shall be very happy to send him a copy of it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to send it to me, but to place it at the disposal of Members of this House who do not know the nature of the task that is imposed on these men under this iniquitous system.

Mr. GRUNDY: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he will order medical examination to make sure of the physical fitness of the vagrants who perform the task of stone-breaking?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Regulations prohibit the setting of any casual to a task not suited to his age, strength or capacity, and no task is required from a casual suffering from temporary or permanent infirmity.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that at the casual wards there are no medical officers, and that no casual is put under any kind of medical examination before being put to this fearful task of stone-breaking?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under Article 14 of the Order, if any casual appears to require medical attention, the
master is directed to obtain the attendance of the medical officer, and it is always open to any casual to ask to see a doctor.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. POTTS: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received from the Barnsley Board of Guardians a protest against the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, throwing upon the shoulders of the ratepayers an additional burden which is due to the technical wording of the Act; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received such a resolution from the Barnsley Board of Guardians, but I may refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by me on this subject in the course of the Debate on the 22nd February on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove).

Mr. POTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that widows without a child have no claim for pension, and that the guardians are having to support them? Is he further aware that where a widow receives a pension, having a child going to school up to the age of 14 or 16 respectively in the case of elementary or higher grade schools, that the moment the child reaches the age limit the pension is withdrawn? Will he take steps to amend the existing Act with respect to that technicality?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Both those points were fully answered in the remarks to which I have referred the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CONTRACT PRICES.

Mr. ROBINSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the actual cost of parlour and non-parlour houses, respectively, at convenient dates in 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, specifying the cost of land, roads and sewers, materials, labour, other charges and profit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give the all-in costs of houses erected during 1924 to 1927, but the average prices of houses included in contracts
let by local authorities during the month of December in each of the years in question (excluding the cost of land and development) were, for non-parlour houses, £440, £448, £461 and £401, and for parlour houses £491, £497, £498 and £468. Sufficient data are not available in my Department to enable me to allocate the costs between the items mentioned in the last part of the question.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I take it that those charges include interest charges?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Dr. SALTER: 47.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities in England and Wales that are now building houses under the 1923 and 1924 Housing Acts by direct labour; and the amount of reduction that has been effected in the cost of such houses since the date of the Housing Acts (Revision of Contributions) Order, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At the 1st March, 1928, 43 local authorities were building houses by direct labour in England and Wales under the Acts in question. I have no record of the final costs of houses completed by direct labour during the period referred to in the last part of the question.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. CRAWFURD: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the existence of trusts and combines in the industries which supply material for building, he will take such steps as are within his power to induce local authorities who have housing and other building schemes to give to firms outside such trusts and combines equally with those within them opportunities to tender for the supply of such building material?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose that local authorities are not fully aware of the importance of securing that specifications for houses and other buildings which they propose to erect should provide for the widest practicable choice of materials with a view to obtaining the most advantageous prices, and I do not think that any special action on my part is called for.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a point of seeing that
this question is brought home to the local authorities, and, in view of the fact that some local authorities by the action of the Government are precluded from insisting upon their employés belonging to trade unions, will he insist that the same local authorities shall give an equal chance to firms outside rings and combines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason to assume that local authorities are devoid of business instincts and principles.

PRIVATE BUILDERS (SUBSIDY CERTIFICATES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints, and, if so, how many, against local authorities who have refused to grant certificates for the subsidy to private builders who desire to build houses under the Housing Act, 1923?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I occasionally receive representations in the circumstances indicated in the hon. Member's question, but no record of the number of such representations received is made. While I am always prepared to make inquiries with regard to individual cases brought to my notice, the actual decision rests with the local authority administering the scheme, and I have no power to overrule their decision.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask what what would be the position if the right hon. Gentleman knew that there was an acute housing shortage in a particular district, and still the local authority refused to grant subsidy certificates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should take all the circumstances into account.

RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation of members representing investors in British rubber companies who, as a result of the fall in values following upon the announeement of a Government inquiry, are suffering depreciation in their property?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As my hon. Friend is aware, the whole
question is at present under review by the Committee of Civil Research. In these circumstances, while I am always glad to listen to the views of Members of this House, I cannot see my way to receive the deputation asked for.

Sir F. NELSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of some of the smaller investors a heavy loss has already been sustained by reason of the fact that they have had to throw their shares on the market?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that not show that the small investor should not have invested in rubber?

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: If the Prime Minister will not receive a deputation of investors in rubber companies, will he receive a deputation of speculators in rubber shares?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that a great many small investors have invested their money in rubber shares, which they were quite entitled to do; and is he also aware that in many cases they had to liquidate them; that their shares were sold on the Stock Exchange at very small prices and were bought back by American investors?

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask the Minister of Health whether these investors could not in despair go and find work?

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Has the Prime Minister read the leader in the "Morning Post" this morning; and, in view of the increasing difficulty and uncertainty in this market, can he not see his way either to make a lengthy statement on the whole situation, or receive a deputation such as that which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson)?

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question, I have not read the article in question. As to the second part, this question has been frequently put to me in the House lately, and I have answered it.

Sir F. HALL: May I press the Prime Minister to say whether—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Sir F. NELSON: I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to this subject to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WINE (IMPORTS).

Mr. MORRIS: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total quantities of wine imported from Foreign and British countries, respectively, and cleared for Home consumption, during the calendar years 1925, 1926 and 1927, and classified as not exceeding 25 degrees and exceeding 25 degrees of alcoholic strength?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As the answer is long, and contains many figures,

—
Consigned from Foreign Countries.
Consigned from British Countries.
Total.



Gallons.
Gallons.
Gallons.


Not exceeding 25 degrees of alcoholic strength (Non-Empire) 27 degrees (Empire).
3,107,841
381,960
3,489,801


Exceeding 25 degrees of alcoholic strength (Non-Empire) 27 degrees (Empire).
4,836,291
1,175,199
6,011,490


Total
7,944,132
1,557,159
9,501,291

WAR INVENTION AWARD (Mr. DE MOLE).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the actual date when the Royal Commission on Awards recommended the payment of £987 to Dr. Mole, the Australian, for the tank invention, as disclosed in the House on 12th March, 1924, and 7th May, 1924?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Royal Commission did not recommend the payment of any award to Mr. de Mole, but, in a separate communicated dated the 20th November, 1919—a few days after the date of their report on the matter—the Commission expressed the opinion that the case of Mr. de Mole was quite exceptional, and that, if he should make an application for the payment of his expenses, the matter should be dealt with in a generous spirit; and it was in accordance with this opinion that the payment

I will, with the Hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. EVERARD: Is it not the fact that, since the Preference has been put on, the imports of wine from our Empire have gone up enormously?

Following is the answer:

The information requested cannot be given for any period prior to the 25th April, 1927, because before that date wine delivered for home consumption was classified under the tariff headings of (a) not exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit, and (b) exceeding 30 degrees and not exceeding 42 degrees of proof spirit, which headings corresponded with the rates of duty then in force.

The net quantities of wine delivered for home consumption from the 25th April, 1927, to the 31st December, 1927, inclusive, were as follow:

of £987 to Mr. de Mole was subsequently authorised.

CAVALRY REGIMENTS (MECHANISATION).

Captain CROOKSHANK (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House which are the cavalry regiments to be converted into armoured car regiments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The regiments selected are the 11th Hussars at Aldershot and the 12th Royal Lancers in Egypt. I much regret that an inaccurate and unauthorised statement was made public on the wireless and in certain newspapers. I had intended to delay making any announcement until
the 12th Royal Lancers had received the official despatch upon the subject.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May I put to you, Mr. Speaker, a small point of Order? I should like to ask your ruling as to whether, when a Question is handed in at the Table and disallowed by the Clerks at the Table, the Member who hands in that Question should not receive immediate notification, so that he can reconsider his Question, if necessary?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I put to you, Sir, a further question on the same lines, namely, why a certain Question has not appeared on the Order Paper? The Question to which I refer appears as having been received, and the Minister to whom I addressed it asked me to postpone it until to-day, but it has not appeared on the Order Paper either yesterday or to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot answer the last question without notice. With regard to the first question, it is the practice at the Table to send a card to an hon. Member whose Question is not in order, so that he may have an opportunity of putting it right. It does not, however, always happen that Members are in the House at the time, and they may not, therefore, always receive the notification as promptly as they might desire.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May I say that I actually approached the Table yesterday about my Question, but I have not received any notice yet, although I have never left the House?

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I say that I would be quite satisfied arrangements could be made for the answer to my Question to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

FIGHTING SERVICES (DISCUSSION OF ESTIMATES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that some two years ago he undertook to
provide an opportunity to discuss the Estimates of the three fighting Services as a whole and together, so that the allocation of expenditure and the coordination of the three Services, with consequential economies, could be examined, he will say when he proposes to give time for such discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have repeatedly stated, the Government would welcome a discussion on the question of defence as a whole, but this is a matter for arrangement through the usual channels.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises that we have only 20 Supply days and that the Opposition have the greatest difficulty in discussing the increased number of Ministries that have been set up; and can he not give a special day for the discussion of this very important matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: If it is a matter of such importance and the Opposition have not availed themselves of their opportunity for discussing it, I hope they will do so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the promise which he gave was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) and to other hon. Members on his own side of the House? I am about the only Member on this side of the House who has been pressing for this discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to use his influence with his own party.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are a great many Conservative Members who want this discussion to take place? Before the War we used to have a discussion on the Committee of Defence Vote, and now we have three fighting Services to deal with instead of two.

Mr. STEPHEN: Cannot the Prime Minister arrange with some of the Members who have been successful in the ballot for a discussion of this subject?

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, a Debate will take place on the Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting civil servants. The Report and Third Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill and of the Rating (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill will also be taken, and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper.
On Tuesday, the Report stage of the Army and Air Estimates.
On Thursday, the Report stage of the Navy Estimates and Civil Excess Vote, and Ways and Means Report.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Arising out of the business for Monday, the Prime Minister is probably aware that the Debate will take place on a Motion that we are handing in to-day, asking for an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with what is known as the Zinovieff letter. May I ask, further, if the right hon. Gentleman can give the date on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open the Budget; and, also, if the date has been fixed for the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill, and what time it

is proposed to give for the Second Reading?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the last question, we propose to give one day, and to take it on Thursday, 29th March. The date of the Budget will be Tuesday, 24th April.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been sending messages through the usual channels but they do not seem to have arrived. May I inquire what business it is intended to take to-night, in case the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister is passed?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is only to ensure getting the Navy Votes—nothing else—except, of course, the formal Ways and Means Resolution, which has to be moved after that.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 225: Noes, 123.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Carver, Major W. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gates, Percy


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Apsley, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Baidwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Douglas H.


Beliairs, Commander Carlyon
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bennett, A. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hamilton, Sir George


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley. S. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Biundell, F. N.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brass, Captain W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Walter


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briogs, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General. C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks. Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Huntingfield, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hurd, Percy A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Burman, J. B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Iveagh, Countess of


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandswerth, Cen'l)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Foster, Sir Harry S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Oakley, T.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.


Kinioch-Ceoks, Sir Clement
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Knox, Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastingts)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Loder, J. de V.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Long, Major Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Looker, Herbert William
Preston, William
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Raine, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)
Waddington, R.


Lumiey, L. R.
Remnant, Sir James
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maclntyre, Ian
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McLean, Major A.
Ropner, Major L.
Watts, Dr. T.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, S. R.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Malone, Major P. B.
Savery, S. S.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Shepperson, E. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Meller R. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
George Hennessy.


Nicholson,Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Eiland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bondfleld, Margaret
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphiliy)
Smillle, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghiey)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charieton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Connoliy, M.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dennison, R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Variey, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hamilton, Sir R.(Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL,

"to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of excisable liquors," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle; supported by Sir Herbert Neild, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Sir Cooper Rawson, Lord Apsley, Mr. Harney, and Mr. Hayday; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 4th April, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

RATING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir Arthur Churchman reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at a Quarter-past Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Yerburgh; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Betterton.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they
had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill): Captain Brass, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir William Davison, Mr. Gates, Captain Gunston, Mr. Harris, Mr. George Harvey, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Wilfrid Paling, Mr. Rye, Dr. Salter, Mr. Scurr, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Evan Davies, Captain GarroJones, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Russell, Major Steel, Mr. Viant, and Commander Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE)).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Five Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Railway (Road Transport) Bills: Sir Henry Cautley, Sir William Edge, Mr. Nuttall, Lieut.-Colonel Thom, and Mr. Webb.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1928.

MR. BRIDGEMAN'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

4.0 p.m.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The Estimate which I am asking the House to vote this year amounts to £57,300,000, which is £700,000 less than the net Estimate of last year, and if you add to the net Estimate of last year the Supplementary Estimates of £450,000 which are now before the House, it will be seen that the Estimate I am presenting to-day is £1,150,000 less than the amount that was actually spent last year. For the Supplementary Estimates of £450,000 this year, I think the House will have been more or less prepared by what I said on the subject last year. I then explained to the House that we were making a considerable allowance for the "shadow cut," an expression which will be understood by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—indeed, I am not quite sure whether he did not invent it—but it is the percentage deduction that is made from the gross Estimate to allow for possible delays in the programme.
There has always been more or less discussion between the Admiralty and the Treasury, and up to last year the Treasury were always right. Therefore, I felt obliged to say that, owing to the experience of the past, I must accept their shadow cut, but I ventured to think they were putting it rather too high, because the recovery in industry, after the stoppage of the year before, was likely to have a reactive effect, and to accelerate production rather than retard it. That is what actually has happened. In the year 1926, when the coal stoppage and the general strike took place, the delivery of materials for use by the Admiralty was retarded to the extent of £957,000, which had to be surrendered to the Treasury. The Treasury that year could not possibly have anticipated that
owing to the stoppage the production that took place would be actually so low, and this year, owing, as I say, to the reaction, £450,000 of that lag has been made up, but for the two years it will be seen that the shadow cut was justified.
Therefore, I am asking now for a sum which is a reduction of £1,150,000 as compared with what was spent last year, and it has been a very hard task to achieve that economy.
In addition to that, I have had to face, on the credit side, a loss of £1,208,000 odd in Appropriations-in-Aid, and what this amounts to really is, that you must of necessity economise to the extent of something like £2,000,000. I have got to save the equivalent of what I have lost in the Appropriations as well as the £1,150,000.
The only considerable item which I have in my favour this year is the fact that there will be only 52 pay days as against 53 last year, which means a saving of £375,000. As far as additions to expenditure are concerned, I do not know that I need call attention to anything special, except perhaps the addition of £198,000 for the Fleet Air Arm, which is to provide new flights of aircraft to be carried in the "Glorious" when she is ready for them. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), in his speech on the Air Estimates, suggested that money was never saved on the Army and Navy but always on the Air. If he will look at the figures, he will find that that is not justified for the last two years, and he must also remember that the Fleet Air Arm is now charged to the Admiralty instead of to the Air Service, and our principal item of additional expenditure is upon the Fleet Air Arm. Therefore, so far from starving the Air side, we are making additions there when we are cutting in other directions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this additional Air Arm strengthen the Navy? Does it not do away with some cruisers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The addition to the Air Arm is in the air. We are not adding machines which are going under the sea or on it, but we are adding to the Air part of the Service. If you compare to-day's figures, leaving out the Non-effective Vote, you will find that for the
Effective Services the total of £48,000,000 corresponds almost exactly with the sum for the Effective Services in 1914, but when you come to calculate what we should have had to pay if pre-War prices, rates of pay and wages existed now, you would have to make a deduction of £18,000,000. Therefore, on that calculation of a comparison between what we are paying now with what we paid before the War, there is a saving on the Effective Services of 37.35 per cent. I would also like to remind the House that when the programme of Reconstruction was agreed in 1925, the Estimates for that year stood at £60,500,000 and the hope was then expressed that, in order to balance the additional cost of new construction, the Admiralty would endeavour to make such economies that if possible an increase over that £60,500,000 would not be required. We said we would do our best to effect it. We were derided by hon. Members opposite arid by those below the Gangway opposite. As a matter of fact, we did better than our word. Instead of producing the figure of £60,500,000, which, it was anticipated, must be the figure all the time during which that Programme ran, we are actually producing a figure of more than £3,000,000 below that amount, and I do feel that the staff at the Admiralty deserve very considerable credit for having succeeded in effecting so extensive an economy.
There is a habit—I do not know where it grew up, but it is a very inconvenient one, I think—that in producing the Army, the Navy or the Air Estimates, the Minister in charge is always expected to issue some Paper in advance of this interesting event. It is not only very advantageous to those who wish to criticise it, but it takes away all the pleasures of anticipation which the Minister would be able to raise if he had not to disclose facts already known to his listeners. Therefore, I think I need dwell at no very great length upon the points which are so clearly, I hope. brought out in the White Paper which accompanied my Estimates. As far as economy is concerned, it is not a path which lies in very beautiful country, and it does not lend itself to picturesque description, so I am afraid that, although I hope to pick out one or two points that may interest the House, I cannot profess
to be able to provide a very entertaining afternoon, or to say anything which is not more or less generally known already.
There is one event of very great value and of very great interest, and that is that New Zealand has made a most generous contribution of £1,000,000 in eight instalments towards making the dock at Singapore, and has also offered to maintain another cruiser more than before. At the last Imperial Conference most of the delegates who attended were very much impressed by the weight of the burden of defence which fell upon the Mother Country, and a contribution like this is very satisfactory proof that in some parts of the Empire that is not only being realised in thought but carried out in action. Some already make very considerable contributions, notably Australia and New Zealand. I venture to hope that all over the Empire it will be recognised that the weight of this burden on the Mother Country is a heavy one, and that this contribution which we have had from New Zealand, although the latest, will not be the last.
I should like to refer with satisfaction to the work which the Navy has been able to do in China during this very disturbed time. They have been able to provide, to some extent, security for people, some of our own nation and some belonging to other nations, who were in great peril at various times during the last year or so. As far as I have been able to gather, their behaviour has been admirable.

Mr. J. JONES: And always was.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And always was, as the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. JONES: We are not blaming them. but you.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that not only in China, but here, they deserve thanks, not only because they were there, and able to get there in a very short time, but for the help they have given in preserving order and saving life in China. I am very glad to think that the health of those engaged there in the Navy has been very satisfactory in very difficult Circumstances and in a very trying climate.
It is always a matter of very great regret, and one of the most painful experiences of economy which we
go through, to have to discharge men from the dockyards, especially at a time when work is not too plentiful elsewhere and at a time when they have been working so well and so loyally as they have ever since I have had the honour to hold the office that I now hold. I have always aimed at trying to get some kind of stabilised numbers of employés in the dockyards, and I hope that we are getting somewhere near to that now. It is not very easy to do so, because work comes in—you never know exactly when some sudden requirement may arise—and we require to take on extra men. Some accident or something may necessitate immediate repairs, and you cannot avoid a certain amount of fluctuation. I hope that that fluctuation will be reduced to a minimum, and that we shall be able now to provide sufficient work in the Royal yards so as not to require any very considerable number of further discharges. This year we are proposing to build both cruisers which are in the Estimates—

Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that you intend to establish a great many more men than are already established at the dockyards?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it does not necessarily mean that at all. You cannot have every man in the dockyards established. What I meant was that we shall try, if possible, to keep the numbers where they are. There may be wastage, as there always is, but I shall be very happy if I can give enough work there to employ those who are there now, and for any reduction to rely merely on the annual wastage.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he has provided for a reduction of 2,000 of these men in the current Estimates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, I said how painful it was and that I hope to arrive at a more stabilised position in the future. To obtain that, the building of two cruisers to be laid down this year in the Royal yards, and one submarine at Chatham will be a very great help to those employed there.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Does this statement mean that the notices which have been issued in Sheerness Dockyard will not operate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it does not mean that. It is not a point of Order.

Mr. JONES: It is a point of discharge.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very sorry; it is simply because we have not work for them to do.

Mr. JONES: We find work for you though.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And I am trying to do it this afternoon. The proportion of work in the Royal Dockyards as compared with outside yards very much exceeds the proportion before the War, and this year it is slightly in excess of last year.
There is another novelty to which should like to refer for a few moments, and that is the Imperial Defence College which has recently been started. It was always said that, if you were going to co-ordinate satisfactorily the three fighting Services, one of the first steps to be taken ought to be a Joint Defence College. That has now been going for about a year, and the experience of it is, on the whole, very satisfactory. Naturally, in the first year an experiment of that kind cannot be fully tested. The first year's work must be empirical to some extent, but I have no doubt that as experience ripens the good results that we have already had will become more and more valuable. There is one thing which is quite certain, even with the knowledge of only this year's work, and that is that the will and capacity of officers in the three Services to work together has already been proved, and each has obtained very much valuable and useful information from contact with the other two branches of the Service.
I have never been satisfied until now with the accommodation for some of the boys in training. The old hulks in which they were trained were to my mind very unsatisfactory for them, the accommodation becoming less satisfactory as time went on. I am very glad that this year we have been able to accommodate boys in the old Forton Barracks at Gosport in very comfortable surroundings and with plenty of opportunities for recreation as well as very good accommodation, which, I think, ought to contribute very greatly to the health and comfort there. The establishment has been opened under the name of "St. Vincent" after the name
of the old boys' training ship which was moored near there for a good many years.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Admiral St. Vincent.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I had not forgotten there was an Admiral St. Vincent—I had even got it written down in my notes. The character and career of that distinguished Admiral is a useful reminder to boys training for His Majesty's Navy. There is another training establishment which is now in process of undergoing what I hope will be a clearly beneficial change, and that is the Mechanical Training Establishment for the artificer apprentices at Portsmouth in the "Fisgard." The hon. Gentleman opposite will remember very well that that old hulk did not provide spacious accommodation. It was cramped and dark, and the work was done under very unpleasant and depressing conditions. It was only through the great energy and spirt of both the teachers and the apprentices that they were able, I think, to be contented and carry on their work as they did. Now we have already met the difficulty in part by allowing some of the older boys to complete their training in the Training Establishment at Chatham.
This year we are asking for a small amount towards making the Detention Barracks at Chatham suitable for the reception of these boys in the future. The sum is small this year, but it will amountt to a considerable total before we finish the work. I hope that Members of this House will not be alarmed at the idea of putting boys into detention barracks. It sounds very alarming, but anybody who has been to see some of our detention barracks that were built comparatively recently, in those spacious days when money seemed to be no object—and I should be glad to see it repeated—will agree that they are magnificent buildings. The theory upon which they were built—and I do not deny that there is a good deal of force in it—was that you should not make a place of punishment too depressing and too uncomfortable, that the curtailment of liberty was enough for, certain kinds of offences, and that there should be amenities which should soften the character and improve the intentions of those undergoing punishment in the
future. The result is that at both Devonport and Chatham there are extremely comfortable detention barracks where one might be glad to spend a week-end. They have a splendid gymnasium, and altogether the amenities are delightful. Nobody would believe, except from the fact that there is a wall all round the buildings, that they have been detention quarters. With the expenditure of a fairly considerable amount of money, we can make the barracks at Chatham suitable for the "Fisgard" boys, and I am quite sure that their health and opportunities for doing their work will be vastly improved by being accommodated there instead of in the old "Fisgard."
Now that I am on the subject of punishment, it seems appropriate to call attention to what is a very satisfactory thing in His Majesty's Navy. I cannot make any more recent comparison, as I have only the figures up to 1926. That the moral is high and the condition of those who are serving in the Navy is satisfactory will, I think, be very clearly-borne out, as also the good relations between officers and men, by a comparison of the figures with those of earlier years. I take the pre-War year of 1912, and I find that the punishments—most of them were small—were 117,000. Of course, there were rather more men borne on the list then than there are now. In 1922, 10 years later, the 117,000 had gone down to 65,000, and in 1926, the last year for which I have the complete figures, the number had gone down still further to 45,147, and, out of that 45,147, 42,700 were minor punishments. If you take courts-martial and compare 1912 with 1926, you find that courts-martial in 1912 were 127 and in 1926 only 14. Of offences against superior authority there were 102 in 1912, and in 1926 there were only four. Therefore, taking roughly the numbers borne, there was one punishment for every one man, counting all the minor punishments, in 1912, there were about two punishments for every three men in 1922, and now there is very little more than one punishment for every two men. When you consider that the offences against superior authority have gone down from 102 to four, I think it is a very clear tribute to the way in which all ranks in the Navy are working together and doing their best.
I shall not satisfy the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) if
I do not say a few words about general naval policy. He has always taken me to task for not dealing in general terms with our naval policy. As I have to explain, the change in the programme of construction adopted in 1925, and also from a very natural desire to please my hon. Friend in any way that I can, I will avail myself of the opportunity of saying something about our programme and our general naval policy. I have to explain, first, the change in the 1925 programme which was laid down for a period of years. The policy then was a policy of replacement. It was initiated by the party opposite, I would remind the House, and I do so with great pleasure, because I think great credit is due to hon. Members opposite for having initiated that policy. They have had the credit of initiating it, and I have had the pleasure of finding the money for the five cruisers which they authorised.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The trouble is that you do not find the money.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: For the five cruisers which they laid down when they were in office, I have had to find almost the whole of the money, and I am glad to have done it. I am continuing the policy of replacement at a reasonable rate. That is our general policy. I will now explain the changes which have been made in the 1925 programme. Last year, we cut out four motor launches and added two sloop-minesweepers. Last year we dropped one "A" class cruiser and one "B" class cruiser. This year we are dropping one cruiser out of three, and we are inserting a further four sloops. There are only 23 sloops now maintained in commission, and 19 of them are doing work which could only be done by cruisers if the sloops were not there to do it; duties such as patrolling the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf, or showing the flag in other parts of the world.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the cruiser which has been dropped been dropped permanently from the programme or has the construction only been postponed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will explain that. I was, first of all explaining the addition of the sloops. I will come back to the question of the cruisers. Many of the sloops now in commission will very soon
have reached an age at which it will not be economical to effect repairs or to give them any considerable extension of life. The same may be said of our minesweepers. Therefore, what we are doing is to proceed with a new programme of sloop-minesweepers for the same purpose, and four of them are being laid down this year. Destroyers are not serviceable for this kind of work. When you can get at least 12 of these sloops at a cost of one cruiser, it is clearly wise to build these new sloops to do work which could not be done except by cruisers. In regard to cruisers, we dropped an "A" and a "B" cruiser out of last year's programme. We are dropping one cruiser out of three this year. In the two years, 1927 and 1928, instead of laying down six new cruisers we shall have laid down three.

Mr. AMMON: You are carrying over.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know how long I am going to be here.

Mr. J. JONES: We do.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So far, we have not any idea of altering next year's programme. That will come to be considered when whoever stands here next year has to present the Navy Estimates. I would remind the House that this being a programme of replacements it would be a very risky thing to go further than we have done in postponing replacements, because in future years we shall have a more rapid obsolescence in cruisers and, therefore, more necessity to spend money in replacements, and that will come at the same time as the possible necessity for replacing battleships, at the expiration of the period of the Washington Convention. We have not dropped the three cruisers because we are not satisfied that this country has done her full part in naval disarmament. This country has done far more in the direction of disarmament in fact than any other country, and it is not because we think that we have not done our full share that I am making this proposal.
We all know that at Washington, America made a very generous contribution towards limitation. They scrapped something like 500,000 tons of ships, either built or building; but it mast not be supposed that nobody else
did anything like that. Before the
Washington Conference, we had voluntarily scrapped tonnage amounting to 1,300,000 tons, and since then we have scrapped about the same amount as the United States. Since the Armistice we have scrapped 1,538 ships—and that does not include trawlers and drifters and other craft brought into the Navy—with a total tonnage of 2,139,515. Therefore, comparing the contribution of the United States of 500,000 tons and our own of over 2,000,000 tons which have been scrapped, no one can say that we have not done our part in the direction of disarmament. I do not think that it is quite sufficiently understood how large a part we have played in this matter. We are the only nation dependent for its very existence on the free passage of the seas, and for that reason our contribution is all the more remarkable.
Take the number of our ships in July, 1914, at the Armistice and in February of this year. In July, 1914, we had 644 ships; at the Armistice 1,887, and to-day 405. The tonnage in July, 1914, amounted to 2,276,000 odd, at the Armistice, 3,136,000, and now 1,329,000. These are very remarkable figures of reduction. Of course, there have been in other Navies as well as our own certain replacements since then, but the figures of reduction which I have quoted are very remarkable and they are figures which we may justly claim as showing that we have done, at least, our share and more than our share in leading the way towards disarmament. Perhaps I might make another comparison, although I do not think it is quite so striking. I will take the naval expenditure of other countries and this country. Our present naval expenditure is 7 per cent. of the total Budget of the country, as against 24.5 per cent. before the War, and as compared with 8.5 in the United States now and 14.9 per cent. In Japan. That shows that compared with the total expenditure of the nation our expenditure on the Navy is very economical.
The further reduction which I am proposing now is not due to our feeling that we have not already played our part. It is due partly to a desire to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a time of very great stringency, and partly on account of the position as disclosed by the Conference at Geneva. I do not
know whether all hon. Members present will recollect that at Geneva we made a proposal that the "A" class cruisers of 10,000 tons, with 8-inch guns, should not exceed in number 13 for ourselves, 13 for the United States, and eight for Japan. We also offered there that if the United States and Japan would agree not to build any more of these large cruisers of 10,000 tons, with 8-inch guns, we would not build any more "A" cruisers until the United States had caught us up. That was a proposal which we made at Geneva, amongst many others. I recall the proposal of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) on this occasion last year, when he said that the way to get agreement was to lower the maximum size of the ships, as you cannot do away with them altogether. I remember it well, because I knew then what we were going to propose at Geneva, although I was not in a position to say anything, and I was very much struck with how very closely it coincided with what the hon. Member said.
Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain the concurrence of the United States in this plan. They said that they wanted to limit us both to a certain total tonnage for cruisers, 400,000 tons for themselves and for us. They also said that out of that they wished to take 250,000 tons for large cruisers, that is 25 cruisers of 10,000 tons, and to arm the rest with 8-inch guns instead of the 6-inch guns which we desired. This proposal, that they were to have 25 large cruisers if we were to have the same number, would have left us with only 150,000 tons for the rest of the cruisers that we wanted. We wanted numbers rather than size; they wanted size rather than numbers. Our ideas turned out to be incompatible, and we could reach no formula which would satisfy both our requirements. What is more, if we had come to an agreement and accepted that, proposal, it would not have been a limitation but a very considerable increase. We were called to attend that Conference for limitation, but to have agreed that we were to build about twice as many of these large cruisers as we have now would not have been limitation but a huge addition. For that reason it was quite impossible to accept it.
While I am speaking of this, I should like to refer to a statement that has often
been made both in this country and across the Atlantic, and that is that we made an unqualified demand for 600,000 tonnage for cruisers. That is constantly said. I never said anything of the kind, as anyone can see, because the remarks that I made are printed and made known to the House. But this error is very frequently repeated, and I have no doubt that it arises from a genuine misunderstanding. This is possibly how it arose: Possibly in some of the minor discussions, when we were discussing large or small cruisers and the need that we have, it was pointed out to the United States delegates that if all were to be 10,000–ton cruisers we should only get 60 of them out of a tonnage of as much as 600,000. We never said that we must have 600,000 tons. What we said was that "If we know we are to have, and everyone is going to have, a considerable number of smaller ships, then we can agree to a much smaller tonnage." But we never fixed any final limit of tonnage. All we mentioned was the numbers that we wanted, the smaller cruisers that we wanted, and that if everyone would agree to that we could agree to a much smaller tonnage, but that if the cruisers were all to be of 10,000 tons, we would be obliged to have 600,000 tons. We never made any unqualified demand for 600,000 tons, but owing to some misunderstanding many people here and elsewhere seem to have thought so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What number did you ask for?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There were several different proposals made, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the whole history of the matter. Whatever we asked for was a maximum,I think we said, roughly speaking, 70, and in the last proposal which was put up we were asking that ships of a certain age should be counted as outside the number, and that would have made the 70 into some thing considerably less. I cannot remember the figure at the moment, but, roughly speaking, it was 60 or 70. Whichever it was, it is obvious that if they were all cruisers of 10,000 tons a very high total tonnage was necessary.

Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the number of cruisers that we had before the War?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There, again, I cannot answer without notice. The figure was somewhere about 110. Having made that offer—that we would mark time if we could agree to limit the A class cruisers to 13 each—we felt last year that, while the American programme was under consideration, it was only right that we should not put down another A class cruiser and so increase our number, so that if they were still willing to accept the proposal they would find us still with 13, at which number we had offered to stop at Geneva. We dropped an A class cruiser out of last year's programme and we dropped another of last year's and we are dropping one for this year. That is, first of all, to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also to show that anything that happened at Geneva was not going to drive us suddenly into a great naval building competition with America or anyone else. Now we learn, as far as we can hear, that they are proposing in their programme that 15 of these large cruisers should be laid down. It is not yet very clear over what period of years they are to be spread. I do not think that it is right while the matter is still under consideration there, that we should enter into any details, because the information I have, although it might be right now, might be reversed by some decision yet to be taken on the other side. Therefore, I do not think that we can go into very great detail.
But supposing it is 15 of these large cruisers that are to be laid down, they have got authority already for eight, and that would make a total of 23, if the 15 are completed. That, as a matter of fact, is two less than they said they wanted at Geneva. It is said by them that these cruisers are required for the purpose of defence, and that is the principle on which we started the discussion at Geneva. On the very first day of the Plenary Session I said: "Cannot we come to an agreement on what we each want for our own defence? Cannot we put aside all aggressive ideas and come to an agreement on what is wanted for defence?" This programme is stated to be what is required by America for her own defence. As such, we have no just ground whatever for complaint about it. We know what we want for our defence and we said what we wanted at Geneva. There is no more
reason to suppose that the American Fleet is going to be used for purposes of aggression than there is for thinking that the British Fleet is to be used for such a purpose.
Therefore, I think rather too much stress has been laid on the failure of the Conference at Geneva and on this particular programme. It does not seem to me very different from what the Americans proposed to us at Geneva. To my mind it certainly is not due to the failure at Geneva that, this programme has been laid down in America. It is actually less than what they put before us there. But, of course, I admit that no one was more disappointed than I was that our proposals, which I think would certainly have been generally approved in this country and were very far-reaching, were not accepted. I do not for a moment hold the view that, because they were not accepted, harm was done by holding a Conference or that there is no prospect of getting any considerable agreement in future. We found a great deal of common ground at that Conference. It was only on this one question of cruisers that there was any substantial difference. That was a very great achievement. We had many exchanges of opinions with them, and it was very gratifying to find how very little difference there was on anything except on this particular problem of cruisers—a problem which it is very difficult for us or America or Japan to solve, because the requirements of the three countries are so utterly different.
It is not a fact, I think, that the failure at Geneva has led straight to this naval programme at Washington. Mr. Wilbur, the Secretary of the Navy, made this quite plain in his speech on 6th March last, when he described the United States programme as
drawn up in 1922, shortly after the adjournment of the Washington Conference, and not hastily arrived at as a result of the failure to reach further agreement as to naval limitation.
If I am right in thinking that we need not look with any great despair at the opportunities that may come in future for limitation, I hope that Members of the House, on whichever side they sit, will not suggest that the failure has led to any strained relations between us and America, or that there is any shouting of bellicose words across the Atlantic
from one country to another. It is not the case. It is necessary that we should be perfectly calm and take this thing in its reality and not get into a panic about it. I shall quote what I said at the last meeting at Geneva, when we
broke up, not as a result of any quarrel or in a warlike spirit, but simply because we could not find a formula. This is what I said:
All three Powers have most certainly had the same goal in view. In attempting to reach it we have travelled sometimes together in pairs, sometimes all three on the same track.
At other times we have sought different roads—and the examination of those different routes will have contributed towards the final selection of the right one which perhaps may, after all, be one that has not yet been discovered by us.
But if it is now found impossible to agree upon a formula which is acceptable to all parties, that would not indicate a spirit of antagonism between the three Powers; still less would it mean that we intended to enter upon a competition in new construction. We shall not then disperse in a spirit of bitterness or despair. The peace of the world does not depend so much upon a comprehensive form of words and mathematical tables suitable to the various needs of each Power, as on the friendly and peaceable spirit of the great nations. No formula could succeed in ensuring peace, if the spirit of peace was not present, and no failure to find a formula is disastrous if the nations concerned still hold fast to the will for peace and the detestation of aggression, to which I am convinced all present to-day adhere as steadfastly as we did before we met.
That is the proper attitude for us to take. There is no desire for war. There is a desire for peace in this
country; let us, therefore, go forward in that direction.
The President of the United States in December last, in a message to Congress, said:
We are ready and willing to continue the preparatory investigations on the general subject of limitation of armaments which have been started under the auspices of the League of Nations. We should enter on no competition. We should refrain from no needful programme. It should be known to all that our military power holds no threat of aggrandisement. It is a guarantee of peace and security at home, and when it goes abroad it is an instrument for the protection of the legal rights of our citizens under international law, a refuge in time of disorder, and always the servant of world peace.
These words we might very well apply with equal truth to the British Navy
and British naval policy. I find great encouragement to believe that the traditions of both countries, the interests of both countries and the common sense of both countries, will lead us before very long into a further consideration of the limitation of armaments.
With regard to this programme, I must once more call the attention of the House to the fact that, because we have dropped these three cruisers, we might be open to the charge of some critic that we are not putting on to these two years their proper share of the burden of general replacement; that we are pushing it off to a future time when more cruisers will become obsolete and, therefore, more will have to be built, and to a time when, on the expiration of the terms of the Washington Conference, the replacement of battleships may become necessary. I think we are right to do it. We are right to take whatever risk there is, and the risk is not great, if, as I firmly believe, we shall be able before long to take further steps in the direction of limitation.

Mr. AMMON: May I ask this question? Does that mean that they have decided to let go the Estimate that has been allowed for the building of the cruisers, that they do not intend to build the whole programme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Do you mean America or this country?

Mr. AMMON: I mean the Admiralty. The cruisers you have not built are only deferred. It does not mean that you have dropped them altogether.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It does not mean that we shall never want any cruisers again.

Mr. AMMON: No, but is it the intention to drop them altogether or simply defer them and then come to the House for fresh Estimates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not intended to build them this year. I cannot pledge myself for the future, but it means that out of this programme, spread over so many years, we have cut one year's building out.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is to say, that you defer this until possibly a Labour
Government comes in, and they will have the burden of having to supply the ships?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They would have the same burden as I have now; that is, the burden of five cruisers which the Labour Government. laid down. When they come in, if ever they do, they will settle themselves what the necessities demand. I am not going to pledge myself that we shall not build any more cruisers, but as far as the programme of 1925 goes the effect is to cut out of the two years, 1927 and 1928, one year's building.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you intend to build any more ships of the "Hood" type?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is provided for under the Washington Conference and we cannot reopen that until the period has expired. I have no doubt the hon. Member would be very glad to have one on the Clyde. I have said a good deal about disarmament and the Conference at Geneva because of the words of the Amendment which is to he moved from the Opposition side. I want to show that although we do not go quite as far as the Amendment the proposals we made at Geneva do embody a considerable amount of what is in the Amendment and a considerable amount of the advice given us by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) last year. I cannot conclude without one reference to an important change that has taken plane at the Admiralty during the year. Lord Beatty, who had held the office of First Sea Lord since 1919, has retired, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sense of the gratitude which I and the Admiralty and the Navy and the country owe him for his long and devoted services. His brilliant career at sea is well known and I need not recapitulate it, but few people realise the full measure of the services he has rendered in administration during a very trying time. It began in 1919 when it was necessary to reduce and go on reducing everything. He carried out his duty in that difficult time with extreme fairness and skill—a very unpopular task—and with the least possible amount of friction.
When I was first appointed to the position I hold now my acquaintance with
Lord Beatty was very slight. When I looked at his very active appearance, his keen eye and great activity, I wondered what sort of a man he would be to work with in an office. Owing to the fate which led me into political life at an early age, I have seen more than one generation of civil servants pass away. I have worked with a great many of them and generally got on fairly well, but I have never found anyone better and easier to work with than Lord Beatty. He never magnified trifles, and he never missed an important point. He had a wonderful faculty of explaining his opinion with the greatest lucidity and brevity and in the frequent discussions which took place between one Department and another, and particularly between the Admiralty and the Treasury, he was an extremely good debater across the table and very often was able to hold his own with such a champion as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Naturally he was keenly alive to the requirements of his own Service, but he took a wide and statesmanlike view of large questions as well. I think it should be known that not only had he a brilliant career at sea but that he was a wonderful administrator during his long period as First Sea Lord. It is said that there are as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it; and there are good Admirals to take his place. We have now as First Sea Lord a man who is fully able to live up to the high traditions of the position. All who have worked with Lord Beatty will remember those years with very great satisfaction. It has been a privilege to work with such a very efficient and cheerful colleague.

Mr. AMMON: The House, generally will be ready to disabuse the right hon. Gentleman's mind of any doubts be may have as to whether his speech has been as pleasant and as interesting as on former occasions. He has been as interesting as usual. Irrespective of policy on matters concerning the Navy everyone will agree with him in expressing their praise and appreciation of the services of the great Admiral who has just laid down the office of First Sea Lord. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on two very excellent steps he has taken during the past year. First, in regard to the better accommodation for the boys in training and,
secondly, that the artificers are to find better accommodation than they have at present in the old hulk they have to use. He paid a modest tribute to the Labour party for having initiated the naval policy which he is now carrying out. While it is true that they did lay down five cruisers, a fact for which I have never expressed any regret, it must be remembered that they picked up from the preceding Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished ornament, a large naval programme and cut down considerably the number of vessels proposed to be built.
Before coming to questions of policy I want to touch on two matters of detail which the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope, will answer when he replies. I should like to ask what the Admiralty proposes to do with regard to the report of the Estimates Committee as to the necessity for a reduction in the Admiralty staff? That Report was drawn up after a great deal of care and an examination of the high officials in the Admiralty, and they made a very definite recommendation as to what they think should be done. Let me quote one or two examples. In the Admiralty pre-War Staff the Naval Assistants cost £4,056; to-day the charge for these same gentlemen amounts to £15,979. The secretariat in 1914, consisted of a secretary, two assistant secretaries, seven principal clerks and nine assistant principal clerks. To-day, it consists of a secretary, a deputy-secretary, two principal assistant secretaries, seven assistant secretaries, 15 principals, and eight assistant principals. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was First Lord, raised some troubles at the Admiralty, which he has not to face in these days and in his present position. It was he who forced upon the Admiralty of that time certain arrangements with regard to the Naval Construction Department. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then First Lord, created some new departments, principally the Naval Equipment Department, which cost in 1913 only £208. In 1914 however its cost had risen to £3,785 and it now costs £11,034. These are one or two of the points which led the Estimates Committee to issue a report on the necessity of reductions in the Admiralty staff, which seems to the ordinary observer unnecessarily large in relation to the
present size of the Navy as compared with what it was in days gone by. I would also ask what is exactly the relationship and the degree of co-operation with the Dominions in naval matters. I understand that the "Diomede" was loaned to New Zealand in connection with the Samoa dispute.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: She was there before.

Mr. AMMON: I understand she was loaned.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: She is kept by the New Zealand Government; and I said that they were going to maintain another cruiser in the same way as they are now maintaining the "Diomede."

Mr. AMMON: I wanted to know if the whole charges had been carried over to the New Zealand Government from the Admiralty. We would also like to have a little more information as to the work of the Navy with regard to the slave traffic and kindred matters, such as the suppression of piracy. Last year, from this side of the House, questions were raised with regard to the development of the air arm and the necessity for co-ordination in the staff colleges regarding this matter. Has anything been done in that direction? Has any consideration been given to the feasibility or practicability of such a suggestion, if only up to a certain point? Would such a step not result both in increased efficiency and some real saving? We should also like to know how far research work has been coordinated between the three Services. On page 11 of the White Paper, a reference is made to certain prizes given to naval officers on the attainment of a certain standard of work. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information as to the nature of these prizes. We should also like particulars as to the cost per head of students in the cadet colleges. Some time ago, a question was raised in this House as to the heavy cost—amounting to about £400 per annum—for a pupil in Dartmouth College. We should like to know if that cost has been reduced.
Coming back to the 1924 building programme, we should like to know how far
has the right hon. Gentleman proceeded. Are all the cruisers now in commission, and has that programme yet been completed? I also wish to raise a matter of high policy which, on two or three occasions, I have raised in these Debates. We have had during the last week or so discussions on the Estimates for the Army and the Air Force, and we are now considering those of the Navy. In every one of these Estimates we find references to air forces, and it is extremely difficult for ordinary observers, or even for students of these matters, to find out exactly what is the expenditure on our air forces and what is the division of the cost.
The question once more forces itself to the front in this connection, of the necessity for co-ordinating the Services, and, at least, considering the possibility of appointing a Minister of Defence. The position has changed even since the last War. Should such an unfortunate calamity as war again descend upon the world, aerial conflict on a large scale is a certainty. We have, practically, three separate Air Services and one or two questions arise which compel the attention even of those who do not claim to be experts on the subject. What would happen, for instance, in the event of a combined attack by the Royal Air Force and the Air Arm of the Navy? Who would take charge of operations and assume responsibility. It is no good waiting until the event comes. If we are going to have controversy about these matters, it is better to deal with the subject straight away. I do not suppose one could expect the Government to give an answer right off on the question of establishing a Ministry of Defence, but I would ask them if they are prepared to examine this problem, and to put their views on it before the House. It is in a time like this, when there is comparative calm, and an opportunity of reviewing the situation, that we should give consideration to this problem so that if the need ever arose for it, the machinery would be in proper working order.
Turning to the reductions on which the right hon. Gentleman has laid such stress, I would like to offer some criticism of his remarks. If there is one art in which the right hon. Gentleman excels—apart from his many other good qualities—it is in the art of camouflage.
He, better than anyone else, knows how to lead Members of the House away from the main purpose of their investigations. I do not think he can take all the credit that he claims for the reductions in armaments, which he has set out, as having taken place since the Armistice. Reductions were bound to follow, when the need no longer existed for a Fleet of the size which had to be called into being for war purposes and when the extra number of men called up for war service had returned to their homes. We welcome the reductions for which the right hon. Gentleman has claimed credit, but suggest that those reductions were not part of any deliberate policy on his part, but were such as were bound to follow in the ordinary course on the conclusion of hostilities. One is prepared to admit that a great deal of misunderstanding has arisen about our position in relation to the Geneva Conference. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government contributed a great deal to that misunderstanding. Their action placed this country in a wrong light before the other countries of the world and gave rise to misunderstanding both here and in the United States. That misunderstanding need not have arisen, had they made their position clear and definite from the outset. It was only after considerable bungling, that the policy of the Government gradually emerged and we failed to reap even that credit which was due to this country.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on the occasion of a similar Debate last year we pressed upon him the advisability of deferring his building programme in a time of peace. We asked him not to call for Estimates for new ships but simply to go on with the completion of the ships already on the stocks. To a very large extent that is the policy which has been followed out during the past year, but we would have been in a much better position with the other countries of the world when we went to Geneva, had that position been frankly and openly accepted. Another matter which might be considered—and this is an opinion shared by those who can speak with an expert knowledge to which I do not pretend—is the position of the capital ship in the future. Having regard to the development of air forces and of high-speed, heavily armed
cruisers, it is considered by many that the capital ship is obsolete and is merely providing, at a tremendous cost, a splendid target which could soon be made a casualty—resulting in terrific loss of money and tremendous waste of human life.
A great saving could be made it any further suggestion for the building of capital ships were deferred until full consideration had been given to the matter. It has been argued that the day of the capital ship is past, and that it is sheer waste of money to continue pouring out £5,000,000 to £7,000,000 on the construction of each of these big machines. While the right hon. Gentleman has indicated certain reductions—in so far as the building of certain cruisers has not been carried out, but has been deferred to a future date—one cannot help noticing that he is building a number of sloops which were formerly not allowed for at all. Really, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman, by a side wind, is getting authority to build a larger number of ships—although he may defer the construction of some of them—than was at first contemplated. There is a considerable set-off to any saving, in the four sloops which are announced as part of the new programme. On page 6 of the White Paper there is a reference to the Geneva Conference:
Nevertheless, though much common ground was found it was unfortunately found impossible to agree upon a formula acceptable to all parties and to our regret, the Conference terminated without arriving at an agreement.
I have already referred to the fact that we might have come out of that Conference with greater credit. I think I am right in saying that the agreement resulting from the Washington Conference comes to an end in 1932. This surely, therefore, would be the opportunity in which considerations and pour-parlers might take place with a view to approaching the next Conference with the idea of the consideration then of the question, not only of capital ships, but of the reduction of cruisers and the abolition of submarines. If we were to do that now and try to explore the ground in those directions, probably much good would be done. Let us face the fact that we cannot talk about very considerably reducing navies unless we are going to get some understanding and assurance
that other countries will act in a somewhat similar way, and I think we should be in a much stronger position if we were to intimate that we are quite willing to go into conference on the next occasion to consider a very much larger proposition than on the former occasion. If the United States were to agree to that, a great deal of good would be done.
Last year we discussed in this House, and there was passed, a Bill for the establishment of an Indian Marine. I think I am right in saying that that Bill has been thrown out by the Indian Parliament, and perhaps we could be informed later as to what is the exact position of that question now. Does that settle it entirely, or will it be re-introduced in any other way? To return to the question of Singapore, one regrets that the money is being poured out in the way it is in those mud flats, raising the possibility of having the same naval race in the Pacific in the days to come as we had in the North Sea in the days before 1914. I would like to ask whether we can be informed how far they have proceeded with the graving dock. I observe that the floating dock is to be towed out, and as the right hon. Gentleman admitted last year, that is rather a reversal of the policy that was originally laid down, when the graving dock was to have preceded the floating dock.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not admit it.

Mr. AMMON: I think I remember saying so last year.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I remember the hon. Gentleman saying that at the time, but I did not admit it then, and I do not admit it now.

Mr. AMMON: I would have fortified myself with the right hon. Gentleman's statement on that occasion if I had thought his memory would be as faulty as that. He said there was no doubt that a former Government did agree that the graving dock should precede the floating dock. He admitted that when we came to the Committee stage of his Estimates, and perhaps he will refresh his memory in the meantime. I would like to know whether the reason for what has occurred at Singapore has been because the borings for the graving dock have been unsuccessful. The House should be informed how much money is
being expended in that connection, and that, I think, will give us some idea that the original Estimate is going to be considerably increased, as all of us on this side thought it would be.
In conclusion, I would like again to emphasise the point that I feel the Government have lost a great opportunity during the year that has just passed to have taken the lead and gained the moral leadership of the world on the question of disarmament, and not only have they missed that opportunity, but they have even lost the opportunity of getting any credit that was righly due to themselves with regard to the position which they did take up. Again, while grateful for the measure of reduction that was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I think it was possible to have made even further reductions and to have postponed a larger part of the programme. There are so many things in connection with naval warfare and, in fact, in connection with all warfare just now which change rapidly that one is hardly able to keep pace with them, and in these times of peace an opportunity might be taken to economise and to conserve our powers, to explore the possibilities of agreement with other nations for further disarmament, and to see whether we cannot effect even greater savings, particularly with regard to the questions of Singapore and of capital ships. I would refer also to the necessity for considering the co-ordination of the Services under a Ministry of Defence, with particular regard to the development of the Air Force and the difficulty of appreciating how the money is being expended in that direction. I hope even now that the Government will give consideration to these points and see whether they cannot make a gesture to the world which will show that we are in earnest about seeking peace and ensuing it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish to touch upon one or two matters referred to by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his characteristically conversational and casual speech. The Admiralty prides itself upon its independence, and indeed its policy is as independent as a craft at the mercy of conflicting winds and changing tides. Nobody is now living, I suppose, who could give an answer to the question as to what is the international policy of His Majesty's Government
with regard to the Navy. The plain, blunt fact stands out that there is no policy at all. The First Lord went to Geneva with a proposition to limit the size of ships and guns. If he had known anything of the United States mentality, he would have known that the last thing that a nation flushed with financial prosperity was desirous of doing was to reduce the size of anything at all, and as long as we proceed in this aimless manner, we shall never meet with success.
There has been no rational proposal put forward by the Admiralty at any time which will meet with the acceptance of other Powers. It would be rational to relate our expenditure upon armaments to our total maritime trade, and if acceptance by other nations of that proposal could be obtained, the day of racing in armaments would be ended. We should have discovered a formula which would entitle the nation with the largest maritime commerce to the largest navy, and within the total sum so allowed, it could build what class of vessels it desired. I do not say at all that my suggestion is the most desirable one that could be made, but it is at any rate a rational principle to fix the percentage to be spent on armaments, basing that percentage upon the commerce of the particular nation. At any rate, it seems to me that such a proposal as that is very much more reasonable than any proposal that was made at Geneva.

Mr. SKELTON: Has the hon Member any reason to suppose that it would commend itself to the United States?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no more reason to suppose that it would commend itself to the United States than that the proposals put forward by the United States at Geneva would commend themselves to us. If the proposal has not been put forward, it is not possible to answer for the United States, but no Government genuinely desirous of peace would have the audacity to refuse a proposal of that kind, which would relate its expenditure to its trade borne upon the waters. I am not in a position to answer for the United States, but the proposal was never put forward. We know that the way in which our Government were proceeding was never going to lead us to success, because we have it on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that the proposals put forward by the United States could never have been acceptable to us, and yet we went into the Conference without making any preliminary effort to discover what those proposals were. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on that point:
Therefore, we are not able now, and I hope at no future time, to embody in a solemn international agreement any words which would bind us to the principle of mathematical parity in naval strength.
If the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton) asks me if my proposals would be acceptable to the United States, I do say that the United States proposals are clearly never going to be acceptable to us.

Mr. SKELTON: Surely that is no argument as to the rationality of the hon. Member's proposal?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly not, but the hon. Member is now raising an entirely different point. I say that there could be no more rational policy than to determine your financial expediture on the Navy in accordance with your seaborne trade. I say that that is a rational principle, but a principle which fixes the size of ships or guns is not rational. You might just as well try and fix the size of policemen. There is no rationality in it; it is purely arbitrary and capricious. Neither is there any rationality in the fact that this country is called upon to bear so considerable a proportion of the expense of the Fleet which is destined to protect the whole of the Empire; and the First Lord made one or two observations on that point. I think the taxpayers of this country have very strong reason to complain of the fact that a small island the size of ours is called upon to support £58,000,000 of naval expenditure.
The Dominions, with whom our relations have become increasingly better, and who derive an increasing advantage from us by reason of the money we spend on propaganda for the purpose of increasing Empire trade, do not pay their adequate quota, and it should be the business of any First Lord of the Admiralty and, a fortiori, of any Government, to arrange with the Dominions that they should bear their proper quota in the future. I have called attention to this matter in previous
years, and the figures continue to be astounding. It is extraordinary that the population in this small country should pay 25s. 6d. per head in order to support the Navy. The Commonwealth of Australia pays 18s. 5d.—that has gone up a little in the last year—New Zealand pays 9s. 4d.; and the Union of South Africa pays 1s. 6d. per head of the population. If Empire means anything at all, it must bring some advantage to the taxpayer in this respect.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: What does Canada pay?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot say. I have not been able to get the latest figures, though I specifically asked for them, nor could I get the Canadian figures for last year, but I can say that in Canada they spend on the Navy 0.75 per cent. of their total imports and exports, which is the lowest percentage of any of the Dominions. I do press that upon the Admiralty, because we shall never get a reduction in Navy Estimates until the principle of Imperial responsibility is followed. If there be inconsistency and prevarication in the policy of the Admiralty abroad, and in relation to the Dominions, still more are they visible in the domestic sphere, in the Admiraty's treatment of those who serve. In 1925, a sum was inserted for marriage allowances for naval officers, which has been for many years one of the most insistent demands of the Service, and still is. That sum was actually included in the Estimates; it was carried by this House and subsequently withdrawn, and it makes no reappearance this year. Although it would cost only £350,000 to put the naval officers on the same footing as army officers, the Admiralty refrains from offering this small measure of justice.
The same inconsistency is observable in the pay of the Navy, which has been reduced, and there are now two scales of pay for similar duty of men working side by side. The First Lord referred to the reduction in punishment in the Navy. The reason that punishment has been reduced is largely because the pay had been improved, and there was a better class of men, with a better sense of responsibility; yet the Admiralty is embarking on the foolish undertaking of
reducing the pay, not by direct means, but by creating two scales, one for new entrants and one for those who had engaged previously. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that we find the Government engaged on the disastrous policy of curtailing the political rights of men in the Fleet when they are in mufti. I raised this matter on the Adjournment, and all that the First Lord could say by way of defence was that my quarrel was with the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). The hon. Member for North Camberwell then rose, and said that he had never seen the Order, which was issued by the Government; and, alternatively, that if he had seen it, it was represented to him that it was issued at previous elections. We know now that no such Order has been issued at any previous election.

Mr. AMMON: I did not, say that it had been represented to me. I said that I presumed it was the usual Order that was issued to the whole Civil Service and to all the Services when an election was to take place.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I accept what my hon. Friend says. If any such Order were passed by him, it was passed on that understanding. His principal point was that he had not seen the Order at all. If you are to take away rights which the Navy has enjoyed historically, reinforced as they were by the Representation of the People Act, which enfranchised the sailors as such, you are in honour bound to come to Parliament before you curtail a democratic privilege that has been quite freely enjoyed up to the election of 1924, just two days before the polling. It is not surprising that the Government have taken these rights away, for they fear the retribution which will be visited upon them for having discontinued the marriage allowance of naval officers, and having reduced the scales of pay. It is rather remarkable that, the very day after the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the Navy had no interest in political matters, a Debate was held in this House on appeal tribunals for naval officers.

Captain FANSHAWE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the present Government had reduced the scale of pay for naval officers?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not talking about officers' pay at all.

Captain FANSHAWE: Or men?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find it in the Navy Estimates, There are two scales of pay in force. I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend, who is a naval man, should not have sufficient interest to ascertain that fact, which affects his own Service. If I have had to complain about these matters which affect the Navy, still more do I have to complain of matters affecting those who build the Fleet. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said this afternoon that he hopes that the position will get better in the dockyards, and that he will be able to fix a proper establishment which will not be departed from, but the plain fact remains that these Estimates take power to reduce the number of employés in the dockyards, which have already suffered very unjustly. How the First Lord could suggest that things were getting better when the Estimates lay down that they shall get worse, beats my understanding. I wish the House would realise how unjustly the dockyards are treated. Nearly one-fifth of these Navy Estimates is to go into the hands of private firms. Nearly all the construction of the Navy, consisting of two cruisers, one submarine depot ship, one flotilla leader, eight destroyers, six submarines, one river gunboat and four sloops, is to go to private firms. Only two cruisers and one submarine are to be built in His Majesty's dockyards. What do we maintain dockyards for? Is it not obvious that their plant will decay, to say nothing of the disaster that will fall on the men who are discharged? Is it not obvious that these dockyards will get thoroughly out-of-date, and will not be in a position to compete with private firms at all?
What I have principally to complain of is that the dockyards have not even been permitted to tender this time. That is an entirely new practice. If the Admiralty desire to save the taxpayers' money, they might at any rate give their own dockyards, which work with plant provided and maintained by the taxpayers, a chance of undertaking the work of the nation for which they exist. I ask the Financial Secretary to tell me what the First Lord meant when he spoke of
fixing an establishment? Has the Admiralty any intention of letting the workers in the dockyards know what their position is, and giving them the same security, which Army men have, of a definite period of engagement in the public service? I only pause to correct two statements made by the First Lord. He said that the dockyards were getting a greater proportion of the work than before the War. It must be remembered that the dockyards before the War had all the work that they could do, and, therefore, any surplus was quite justifiably given to the other yards. He said, secondly and erroneously, that the dockyards were getting a bigger proportion than they had previously received since the War. The fact is that two dockyards have been closed, and those that remain ought to be given a very much greater proportion. I ask the pardon of the House for referring to these domestic matters at the end of my speech, but the First Lord has created a precedent by referring to the dockyards in his speech in introducing the Estimates. These very important matters were hitherto neglected on this state occasion, and I am glad that the First Lord has been impressed by the necessity of saying some words of encouragement, which I hope will presently be carried into effect.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the skill and energy of his advocacy as a dockyard Member. Whether he will succeed in persuading the Admiralty to give further contracts to the dockyards is another question. The other day I raised the question of the incidence of tuberculosis in the personnel of the Navy, and I make no apology for returning to it, in order to impress upon the Admiralty, and upon the Government, the necessity for realising that it is a very serious matter. I repeat what I said the other day, namely, that the incidence of tuberculosis in naval personnel has been considerably higher for a period of years than it has been in the Army, and in the rest of the population. That statement speaks for itself. I said that it calls for immediate investigation and action in order to put the matter right.
There are certain other details to which I should like to refer on points that were raised by the First Lord. We
are constantly accused of not making sufficient reduction of armaments and of not taking the initiative in calling for a reduction. I propose to put one or two arguments to show, not only that we have done a good deal in the past, but that our intentions have been and will be good. I will quote from an American journal giving us great credit for what we have done in disarmament and the breaking up of ships. There is a Press campaign—perhaps no more than that—in the United States on the question of whether or not we have what is called been "putting one over" on the United States, either in regard to the Washington Conference or the Geneva Conference. This is what this important American paper has to say:
How in the world a nation that sacrificed one and one-third million tons of fighting ships voluntarily, and then followed that up by destroying nearly half a million tons of completed dreadnoughts, can be accused of 'putting one over' on a nation that has broken up only 498,192 tons of dreadnought and pre-dreadnought construction, is puzzling to the commonsense mind of the average layman.
They go on to say:
We hold no brief for the British or any other foreign navy, but we do hold a brief for incontrovertible truth, for fair play, and for good sportsmanship.
That is a very fair statement to make in regard to what we have done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the paper?

6.0 p.m.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The
"Scientific American." We have no cause to regret the agreement that was come to at the Washington Conference. At the Geneva Conference we made extraordinary concessions in order to bring about agreement. If that agreement had been carried into effect, the result would have been that we should have saved in the course of a few years no less than £50,000,000. We proposed a reduction in the size of ships and a reduction in armaments in all classes of ships; we proposed that the lives of ships should be extended, and, above all, the best thing that occurred at that Conference was the frank and clear statement on our part of why we wanted a Navy, and what we proposed to do with the Navy which we thought that we
wanted. That is a thing which has never been done previously on so great a scale; in fact, nothing of that kind has ever occurred in any previous disarmament conference. With the spirit prevailing at the present time between ourselves and our friends across the water we have a right to hope and to expect that long before 1931 we shall be able to see our way to having a further conference and arriving at some reasonable and lasting decision which will prevent anything in the nature of competition in naval armaments.
One further remark, which is perhaps pertinent to the subject of the efforts we have made in regard to disarmament, and that is that at present our Navy is one-third less than it was in 1913 and the tonnage of the Navy has been reduced by at least 40 per cent. The Government and the Conservative party are constantly adjured to bring about international agreement of one kind or another in regard to naval armament. For the benefit of the Socialist party, I would like to point out how extremely difficult it is to accomplish anything of that sort. By reason of the activities of our ancestors, we find ourselves in possession of all the salient points on the trade routes very nearly all over the world, certainly on the way to the East; and I am glad that it is so. If one makes a journey, either in fact or otherwise, from this country, or from Holland, or from anywhere in the North Sea, all the way to the East one finds that it is not possible to call anywhere, either for provisions or fuel, except at a British port. Foreign nationals moving about the world have that fact constantly before their eyes, and it is natural that they should ask, "How is it that this nation is in possession of all these places?" That naturally makes it very much more difficult to arrive at any agreement.
It seems to me that it ought to be possible to arrive at something in the nature of an agreement but it will be done in one way only, and that is by the various nations whom we are asked to approach on the subject of naval disarmament being prepared to guarantee amongst themselves that their respective possessions in the world are to remain their own property and that they will undertake no aggressive action against another's possessions, and, further, that
they will guarantee the same treatment for our possessions. That is an extremely difficult undertaking to arrive at, but it is worth the endeavour. One thing can be said for certain—at any rate I am prepared to say it—that at the present time I know of only one nation which is prepared to guarantee the integrity of the possessions of the other nations of the world, or, rather, to agree that it has no aggressive intentions against those possessions, and that is our own nation. Until we feel sure that other nations are prepared, amongst themselves and also as they stand in relation to ourselves, to come to such an agreement, it is not possible to arrive at any permanent and lasting agreement for naval disarmament on any large scale.
From time to time we are asked to consider the use or the abuse or the abolition of capital ships. It has been said many times, but it cannot be said too often, that capital ships are the outcome of the natural development of the fighting ships and that if we do away with the capital ship as we understand it today the only result will be—and very properly so—that the next largest or most powerful type of ship we were entitled to retain would ipso facto become the capital ship of its day. We might call it what we liked but it would remain the capital ship, that is to say, the greatest and most powerful type of vessel upon the sea. We have been asked to support the abolition of submarines, and I have no doubt we should agree if other nations would do the same, and that is not surprising when we remember that at the outbreak of the War we possessed no less than 20,000,000 tons of merchant shipping and that by actions which were definitely illicit and illegal we lost during the War no less than 8,000,000 tons, a very large proportion of it by submarine action. But quite apart from any selfish motives which might be suggested, it would be a right and proper thing for us to do away with submarines from motives of humanity, of expense and peace. I have no hesitation in thinking that the Government would welcome anything which tended towards the abolition of submarines.
There is on the Order Paper an Amendment which, at the end, suggests that a restriction should be introduced limiting the maximum tonnage of
cruisers to what is necessary for police purposes. I am not sure what that means. I am not quite sure whether that refers to the maximum tonnage of each cruiser, or the maximum tonnage of all the cruisers taken together; and apart from that, the point I wish to draw attention to is the reference to "police purposes." It is a very attractive idea that the sea should be policed by ourselves, and perhaps by other nations, but I would like to quote one or two figures showing that the cost of police to the taxpayers of the country is by no manner of means small, indeed, that it is a very serious charge. I have looked up the cost of the police in this country over a, term of years in order to draw a comparison with the cost of the Navy. which is, of course, the insurance we pay for our shipping and our possessions. In the year 1900 we had 41,000 police in England and Wales, and the total cost of the police in that year was £4,250,000. In 1913–13 years on—the police force had grown to 54,000 and its cost had gone up to £6,500,000. From 1913 to 1926, another period of 13 years, with the War intervening and causing a certain alteration in the value of money, the number of the police force rose to 57,280—that is the figure for the year 1926–1927—and the cost rose to no less than £19,000,000 in that year.
One must suppose that the police exist in general to keep order and to protect us from the depredations of the criminal classes, and they have, of course, other duties to perform, but if the police have 57,000 men, costing £19,000,000 a year, it seems to be a fair contention that an expenditure of £58,000,000 on the Navy is not too large a sum to pay for the insurance of thousands of millions of pounds' worth of property overseas, the protection of 8,000 miles of trade routes and the protection not only of the property but of the people of the whole world. The expenditure on the police is for the most part, if not entirely, on the personnel of the Force. There is not a great deal of matériel—there are some horses and some horse and a few other items of that kind. In the Navy there are 100,000 personnel and battleships costing £8,000,000, cruisers costing £1,000,000, the upkeep of dockyards, and all the other tremendous expenditure on
material. I wanted to make that point, because it is so often suggested that the cost of the Navy is an intolerable burden, but if we put up with an expenditure of £19,000,000 in order to be looked after as a set of law-abiding citizens, I think we ought to face with complete equanimity the expenditure of £58,000,000 a year on the Navy. Personally, I can pass a policeman without a flutter of the heart for an instant, and I have no doubt that all Members of Parliament can do likewise, and it seems to me a strange thing that we in London require 18,000 or 19,000 policemen to look after us. There must be something wrong with us.
Our Labour opponents in this House—I say it with all respect to them—forget sometimes what the Navy does in the world. The power and prestige of the League of Nations is very largely dependent on the efficiency of the British Navy. They rely very largely indeed, and I am glad to think it should be so, on the continued efficiency of the British Navy. Then I have no hesitation in reminding my Labour opponents that the vast majority of the smaller States of the world would view with alarm anything that tended to reduce the efficiency or the power of the British Navy. In my movements about the world I have found that to be so, and it is a point which ought to be borne in mind. Again I have to refer to the question of police. In peace time the Navy polices the seas, and polices maritime coasts of the whole world. Wherever it may be, it is always doing police work of one kind or another. Even if it is not active, the very presence of a British man-of-war always has a calming and soothing effect on the people who see it

Mr. VARLEY: In Samoa?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Yes, even in Samoa. It has often been said, indeed it is almost a truism, that if you want to run the risk of breaking up this Empire the best and the quickest way of doing it is to reduce the power of the British Navy. It is sometimes thought that it is an easy thing to improvise a Navy and adopt a policy of reducing its strength in peace time, and building it up when a time of stress conies. Anyone who knows the naval history of this country is well
aware that every time we have followed such a policy it has invariably brought disaster. Considering the complicated machinery of the Navy, and the time it takes to train efficient naval officers and ratings, I think we ought to be most cautious before we do anything to reduce the strength of the Navy, or the staff that controls the Navy and does its thinking.
Every hon. Member in this House has a great responsibility in this matter, and therefore we ought to be very cautious how we put down Amendments on the Order Paper which might tend to make people believe that we do not realise our responsibilities. We have to protect the teeming millions who live in India as well as our own people in the Dominions overseas, and, therefore, we should be most cautious in putting down Amendments which might make those people think that we were not considering our responsibilities towards them. We should not allow ourselves to be carried away by ill-digested plans and ill-considered idealism however excellent they may appear to be in some respects, because that would be a most dangerous thing to do. I sincerely hope that those Members of the Labour party who are going to speak upon the Amendment standing in the name of one of their Members will be very cautious how they press their claims for that Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) upon his speech, because I am always very glad to hear an old shipmate of mine speak in this House. I regret that more Members of the Conservative party were not present to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. It is a most remarkable fact that while the First Lord was making his very interesting statement, and while the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes was speaking, the Conservative Benches were very sparsely attended. Last Wednesday when the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) moved his Motion in favour of doing justice to the sailors and soldiers who were dismissed because they were suffering from tuberculosis, the Conservative Members counted the House out before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was able to reply. I hope the Parliamentary
Secretary will give his reply to-night, and I trust it will be favourable, because he must know that if a Vote had been taken last Wednesday a great many of his own party would have voted against him if he had given an unfavourable reply. A Member of the Conservative party called attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present on Wednesday last, and I hope the welfare of the lower deck will not be neglected on this occasion. Of course I know that the Whips expect every Member of the party to vote blindly for whatever Motion before the House if the Government are in favour of it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes does not believe in a limitation of armaments, and in that respect he differs from the First Lord, who has stated that he is very hopeful of a further limitation of naval armaments taking place. That is one reason why he has dropped the building of three cruisers during the last two years. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he trusts to the good sense of the British and the American people to effect a further limitation of armaments. I would like to ask the First Lord if it is the intention to hold another Naval Conference before 1932 when the Washington Agreement comes to An end? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there will be another international conference before 1932?

Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that there must be another conference in 1931.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to know whether that is in the mind of the First Lord, because the programme of 1925 was the absolute minimum, and there can only be one more building programme besides the present year's programme before 1930. We have another year to go after the present building programme is completed. Every time the First Lord of the Admiralty has introduced the Navy Estimates, he has said that no further economies are necessary or allowable, and when Members of the Labour party have dared to ask for further economies, we have been looked upon as doing a very unpatriotic thing. It is a rather strange thing that, after the Geneva Conference has failed, and after a very large building programme has been announced by the United States, the right hon. Gentleman finds that, in
regard to this matter of reducing armaments, the Labour party have been talking sense and he has been wrong, because he has now concluded that a number of cruisers can be safely dropped.
That must be the case unless the First Lord has information that there is going to be another conference called by Japan or by our own Government. Of course, in that case there is justification for the point of view in regard to the dropping of three cruisers from our programme. If the right hon. Gentleman has that information, the House has a right to know it before passing these Estimates, and I invite him to tell us what information he has upon this point. If the First Lord has no information on this subject, as this is the Presidental election year in America, I hope he will induce the Foreign Secretary to visit Washington as soon as the election is over in order to examine carefully the whole situation there. I think the three or four weeks necessary to cross the Atlantic and explore the whole position would be time far better spent by the Foreign Secretary than indulging in these continual journeys to Geneva which lead to nothing at all in the direction of the limitation of armaments. If the First Lord has no information in regard to a new conference before 1931, I think he should induce the Foreign Secretary to go to America directly the Presidential elections are over.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes has drawn a comparison between the police force of this country and the Navy. The difference is that whereas the police force is maintained to arrest malefactors and prevent the commission of crime and acts against all classes and nationalities within their particular territory, the Navy, which in the days of the Roman Emperors and the Plantagenet Kings acted as sea police, is no longer an international police force. If we could draw the navies of the world together for police purposes to secure all trade routes against attack, then the hon. and gallant Member's analogy would be a correct one, but that is not the case.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the police control the criminal classes. I doubt whether there are 57,000 criminals, but there are 57,000 police. I know the police have plenty of other duties to
perform besides that of controlling the criminal classes, and we must not forget that a large number of our criminals are shut up in gaol and need no police to look after them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know the police have many other duties to perform, but I do not wish to split hairs on this point. The police are not a fighting force, and their duty is to keep the peace. My point is that if you could have a system under which every State provided its quota towards a force which would be charged with the duty of protecting our trade routes from attack, then the peace of the world would be assured. It has already been pointed out that wherever a ship calls for fuel it is generally a port somewhere in the British Empire, and the fact that we have a predominant force at sea means that we can close the trade routes any time to every other nation, and that is the reason the Geneva Conference broke down. The First Lord of the Admiralty knows that very well. After the ship-building programme sanctioned by the Washington Conference has been completed, the American Navy will be equal to ours; in fact, it will be slightly superior owing to the greater number of modern ships.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Ships do not make navies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope that we shall not hear in this Debate either Liberal or Conservative reactionaries throwing out the suggestion that America cannot man her ships. That is an extremely foolish idea to put about. and I do hope I am scotching a ridiculous assertion—

Mr. BROWN: That is a slight on Devonshire seamen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had the honour of seeing something of the American Navy and their ships when they came over here. Their men are excellent, and their officers are devoted and skilled, and, if we hug the illusion that they will never be able to man their ships, we are living in a fool's paradise. That is exactly the mistake which the Germans made when they thought we could never raise an army, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a proof of the falsity of that, because he was
one of the amateur soldiers who beat them at their own game. He talks of Devonshire sailors, but men who are their descendants are now living in the Eastern States of America. My own grandfather fought in the American Navy and he was a Scotchman. Do not let us hear in this Debate that the Americans cannot man their ships. Of course, they can out-build us because of their money, and they can get sailors, and it is quite a mistake to decry the virtues of other people.
The First Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, who so ably supported him, spoke of our wonderful record of scrapping tonnage. The facts, of course, are these. Before the outbreak of war, we kept every ship that was fit to float, because we knew that it would he useful for some purpose, and some of these old ships did excellent work long after they were really obsolete. During the War, we naturally kept every sort of warship that we had, for it could perform some service. After the War, we very properly cleared our Navy List of all the old junk, and that is what makes up the millions of tons of scrapped ships. I do not say that we have not scrapped as much as other people, but the fact remains, and I am bound to admit it, that, when the shipbuilding programme was commenced after the Washington Conference, the Labour Government, having inherited the Estimates of the Conservative Government and being in a minority in this House, were over-borne by naval opinion. and commenced—

Mr. CRAWFORD: Not on that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member was not in the House at that time—

Mr. CRAWFURD: No, but I know what happened.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was in the House, and led the attack upon them. The last hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who interrupted me took my attention away; I hope that the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) will not do so also; I have a serious argument to put to the House. The point is that, when the programme of new ships was commenced,
we bad a very large preponderance of cruising craft. In 1921, parity in capital ships, both cruisers and battleships, having been agreed upon at Washington, the fact that we led the way with our tremendous number of ships at that time naturally led to corresponding programmes in other countries, and I really think that the right hon. Gentleman does no good at all by pretending that we have led the way in disarmament. We have done nothing of the sort. We thought that we were going to be in a predominant position after the German Navy had been destroyed. We refused to discuss the second of President Wilson's Fourteen Points at the Paris Conference, and we refused to re-codify the sea law. That matter is going to be discussed on another occasion, and I do not want to enter into it now, but that is the real cause of the trouble to-day. This attempted predominance, this clinging to the shadow of sea power and the power to control the trade routes of the world, will only lead to disaster.
The attitude of the First Lord towards the breakdown at Geneva is, Oh well, this is only one more of those disarmament conferences; not much harm has been done; of course, we all parted good friends, and we will do better next time." When he takes that attitude, he must be unaware of the feeling that bas been aroused in America by that very breakdown. It has been most disastrous. I admit that the Big Navy party in America is very noisy and very active, and it has, of course, exploited the situation to the utmost. It is supported, of course, by the armament makers, just as our Big Navy party, our Blue Water School, the Navy League and the Blue Funk School in this country, are supported and encouraged by armament rings here. The breakdown of that Conference, for which the right hon. Gentleman has at any rate a partial responsibility, has created a great deal of suspicion and ill-feeling in America. I am going to quote some evidence given before the Naval Committee when this programme was being considered by it. They have a much better method in the American Congress; they have a Committee that can go into details and call evidence, and I wish we had that system
here; it would be very much more useful, and we should save a great deal of money which the Admiralty seem to be incapable of saving themselves. This is the evidence of Dr. William Howe, a leading educationist and religious leader in America. He is presumably a person of some importance, or he would not have been called by the Committee. He said:
If you gentlemen would only talk to American people outside Washington, you, too, would be amazed and startled by the hatred for the English people which is already flaring up under the stimulus of this proposal"—
that is with regard to the 25 cruisers. The anger was not against their own Navy party, or against their own administration, but against us. We were represented as being responsible; the blame for the need to spend this money on these cruisers in America was put upon us and upon the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not propose to quote from a speech made in another place, but I must draw attention to the statements that were made by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, Lord Cecil, on his resignation, when he said that agreement was almost reached on two occasions. He said that agreement was almost reached in regard to the 7-inch gun, and the Cabinet vetoed it; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) has pointed out, when agreement was nearly reached on another occasion, a telegram was received from Downing Street recalling the right hon. Gentleman and his noble colleague, who were kept hanging about here for 10 days, during which time a precious opportunity was lost. If it is really a fact that we stated that we could not accept mathematical parity with America in what are called auxiliary ships, that is to say, cruisers—and that is the statement which was made by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I think the right hon. Gentleman did an ill-service to the British Empire. For him to say, with a depleted Exchequer, with an over-taxed people, with unemployment and bad trade such as we are suffering from in this country, that under no circumstances would he—acting, of course, on behalf of the British Cabinet—accept mathematical parity with America, when America was asking for it, was bluff. His bluff has been called, and we have to "pay the kitty," if I
may use a poker expression—a bluff with four cards in his flush, to use another poker expression. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman, in his unregenerate days, ever indulged in that questionable pastime. If he did not, perhaps it is a pity, because he met people at Geneva who have made it their national game.
May I put another question to the right hon. Gentleman? Why has there been this sudden change of policy on the part of the Admiralty towards cruisers and the size of cruisers? When certain hon. Members on this side of the House have ventured to suggest that the 10,000-ton cruiser with 8-inch guns was too large for its purpose, hon. Gentlemen on the other side, including the First Lord himself and the hon. and gallant Member for Western Stirling (Captain Fanshawe), who is closely in touch, I know, with Admiralty opinion, have always said that it is murder to send British sailors to sea in ships that are not as powerful as, or more powerful than, any other warships that they are likely to meet; that we must have 8-inch guns; that the 7.5-inch gun could not compete with the 8-inch gun; that we must have these 10,000-ton cruisers, because in a seaway you could not fight these guns in a small ship, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen who follow these Debates will know that I am speaking the truth; again and again we have had that argument. Now, suddenly, at Geneva, when the Americans declare that they want a certain number of these cruisers, a love is discovered by the Admiralty for a smaller type of ship.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Long before the Americans raised the question of the 25 large cruisers, I had, in my first speech, actually proposed to limit the number of these large cruisers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Exactly; but those are the right hon. Gentleman's words; what about his deeds? Why were all the ships that he laid down armed with 8-inch guns? Why was the programme which the Labour party inherited—I was not in that party then, and therefore I can speak with detachment—for eight of these ships, and not five, which was the number that my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) had to defend when we gave him the time of his life
while he was at the Admiralty? Why were eight of these ships on the stocks—I do not mean literally in the dockyards, but why had the programme gone up?
[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that I know perfectly well. The Admiralty put it into the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that they were to replace the County class. The County class were armed with 6-inch guns. The point was that these new cruisers of 10,000 tons—actually 13,000 tons, because the water and fuel are not counted—were armed with 8-inch guns. That started a new naval standard, just as the original Dreadnought battleship started a new naval standard of fighting ship under the late Lord Fisher, and that has been the cause of the trouble.
Now the Admiralty, to suit their own purpose, suddenly make out that a cruiser armed with 6-inch guns is defensive, and a cruiser armed with 8-inch guns is offensive. That is an extraordinary stragetical theory. I do not wonder that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) laughs. He does know something of naval strategy, at any rate. The "Emden," which sank 180,000 tons of shipping and did so much damage, although she was chased by no fewer than 70 ships, was only armed with 4-inch guns, firing 25-lb. shells. Was she a defensive or an offensive type? If she was defensive, what is a cruiser armed with 6-inch guns firing a 100-lb. shell? According to the Admiralty, she is defensive, and a cruiser armed with 8-inch guns is offensive. Then there is another theory, that the cruiser armed with 8-inch guns would reinforce the battle fleet. It is a most extraordinary argument that you can put these little cruisers—that is to say, little compared with battleships—armed with 8-inch guns, with very meagre armour protection, into the line of battle, and that they are going to reinforce the battle fleet.
In the preliminary skirmish at the Battle of Jutland, before the two main battle fleets met amid the smoke and mist and cordite fumes, two cruisers, the "Defence" and the "Warrior," were placed at the head of our Battle Fleet. They came within gun range of the German battleships, and in a few minutes, after only a few salvoes, the "Defence" was sunk with all hands, and the "Warrior"
was forced to retire. Those were ships of 14,000 or 15,000 tons, with strong armour and well protected guns—armoured cruisers which, before the War, it was supposed would be fit to fight at the head of the line. To talk now of the 8-inch gun cruiser being a reinforcement of the Battle Fleet is to forget every lesson of the War and every lesson that has been learnt from the study of it since. The right hon. Gentleman talks of 70 cruisers as our maximum. According to the "Economist," 70 cruisers would cost £122,500,000, and their yearly cost of upkeep would be £13,500,000. Where is the money to come from? We want a little more information on these matters, and even the delightful, amusing and flippant speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Estimates will not satisfy the public outside, who are most gravely disturbed at the naval situation that has arisen owing to the breakdown of the Geneva Conference, for the blame of which they look to the right hon. Gentleman.
Two other matters I want to mention. Reductions are being attempted in the Admiralty personnel. I hope, while all the redundant civilians are cleared out, there will be no reduction of the naval staff itself—I mean the naval officers with sea experience—beyond the need of efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Davidson), the chairman of the Conservative organisation—hon. Members opposite ought to take off their hats when I mention his name, and those without hats should cross themselves—when he was Parliamentary Secretary, met some suggestion of cutting down the naval side of the staff. Speaking at Harpenden on 28th October, 1925, this is what the right hon. Gentleman had to say:
Did the public desire that we should go back to the days before the War when there was no naval staff to superintend the tactical efficiency and tactical operations of the Fleet? Did the public realise the disasters during the War that had resulted from the lack of a proper naval
staff?
That is only too true. We had no real staff at the Admiralty and no thinking department of any sort, and it is unnecessary for me to tell the House of the grave defects that existed in the Navy when we were faced with war. It is necessary to have officers from the sea at the Admiralty, and, above all, in the thinking department, the plans department,
which is not engrossed in day-to-day administrative work, but has the task of looking ahead, and thinking ahead, which is very essential, and I hope in any reduction that is made in the Admiralty that fact will be borne in mind. I am told they have to say what exactly they are doing, what forms they fill up, and what terms they make, whereas they are people who should be engaged in study, in drawing up plans for the future and in thinking out policy ahead. I hope there will be no penny wise, pound foolish policy of destroying the staff which only the grave dangers of the War called into being.
The other point I wish to raise is this. I asked a similar question of the Secretary for Air, and got no reply. I may have better luck with the Admiralty. Whose business is it in case of war to protect our merchant fleet from air attack? Just as the submarine was the great surprise of the last War, and sank 7,000,000 tons of our shipping, the surprise of the next war, if it comes, I believe will be aeroplane and seaplane attacks on merchant shipping. The Navy has a naval wing composed of fighters, observation machines, torpedo-carrying machines, etc. The Commander-in-Chief of the day will fight to the last to keep his aeroplanes, for tactical reasons, with the Fleet. Will it be the duty of the Navy or of the Air Ministry to protect merchant ships at sea from aeroplanes? Will it be done by aeroplanes flying from aerodromes or from carriers, or will it be done by the naval wing? There is as grave a lack of co-ordination between the three fighting Services as ever there was before the War, and amongst the people who can take decisions this matter has never been properly considered, I believe, because I see no signs of preparations in peacetime, when they must be made, to meet what may be in war-time a very serious menace which may succeed in injuring the country to an extent which even the submarine did not accomplish.

Captain FANSHAWE: I did not mean to intervene in the Debate, but certain remarks have been made by the last speaker and by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to which I should like to reply. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted me as having said—perhaps I did, though I de not
remember it—in some
former naval Debate that it was wrong to send our men to sea in small cruisers with 7.5-inch guns which might have to meet cruisers of 10,000 tons armed with 8-inch guns. I should have thought that was only common sense. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had paid as much attention to his duties when he was a naval officer as he does to his duties in this House, he might have learnt more about the sea Service. He has quoted American opinion to us, so I should like to quote American opinion to him with regard to the breakdown of the Naval Conference at Geneva. I quote from an article in the "Scientific American" of December, 1927. It says:
The facts brought out in this article may serve to account for the failure of the Geneva Conference. Its futile ending is to be explained in large measure by the fact that the anti-treaty propagandists commenced their malicious work some weeks before, the Conference opened and continued at Geneva to carry it on most vigorously during the actual sessions. We know that this is the case because, before the Conference opened, we received from Geneva several articles from one of the most active anti-treaty writers, the burden of which was that the United States Navy was already below Treaty strength.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I also said that the big armament group in America and the big Navy group were very largely to blame. I admit that. As long as you have private enterprise in armament manufacture you will always have that.

Captain FANSHAWE: Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman has side-tracked on to some question of nationalisation, where I will not follow him because I wish to be brief. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the First Lord went to Geneva apparently upholding the 10,000-ton ship. The House knows that that is not in accordance with the facts. What the First Lord actually did was to limit the 10,000-ton cruisers, to put them into a special class and to arrange that that special class should die out altogether. I think that is absolutely accurate, and all hon. Members will agree with me when I say that.
One point at any rate on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman is with regard to the naval staff. I was one of those people who went to sea from
Weymouth late in July, 1914, when we sailed in the first Fleet on our way to Scapa Flow to take up our war stations. We had then an immense Fleet with magnificent ships, magnificent officers and men and everything except that we had no directing brain in the Fleet at all. There was no naval staff—it might have started but I do not think so—then operating in the Fleet, and I believe it was not fully operating in the Admiralty either. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he went to the Admiralty, saw the absolute necessity of a naval staff and he is largely responsible for building up that naval staff. The hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon) knows that it would be suicidal in any way to impair the efficiency of that naval staff.

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that I was pleading for a co-ordinated staff, for a Ministry of Defence, as against two separate staffs.

Captain FANSHAWE: I know the hon. Member was doing that, but again I will not follow him, though it is a very attractive line. He draws attention to the increases at the Admiralty all round, but I do not think he wishes to limit the naval staff as such. I do not think he can, after having served at the Admiralty.
The only other point I wish to mention is the remark by the hon. Member for Devonport with regard to a certain Fleet Order prohibiting naval officers on half-pay taking a certain part in political activities. He said the Government bad taken that step because they were frightened of the consequences of having cut down naval pay. I know he did not want to be inaccurate. but it is rather a pity to put that sort of idea forward as the idea of the Government or of the great Service to which I belong. I do not think any naval officers mind the terms of that Fleet Order at all. After the War we had a Committee at the Admiralty, presided over by Admiral Halsey, which decided what new rates of pay should be given to officers and men. The men's pay was stationary and larger than they had before the War. The officers' pay was also larger, but it fluctuated on a sliding scale with the cost of living. The pay of many Departments was dealt with in the same way after
the War. The pay of new entrants has been reduced, but no one has had his pay reduced while he is serving. I fail to see how anyone can say, when candidates come forward for any Service, that they have had their pay cut down. They come forward knowing the conditions, and, if they accept the pay as one of the conditions of service, how are they damaged in any way?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. BROMLEY: I do not propose to follow the professional officers of the Navy in their disputes, in which they generally appear to differ from each other so much, but, I want to refer to something that was entirely absent from the speech of the First Lord and to refer again to a question which I raised with him in the discussion of these Estimates last year. It is the question of the replacement of oil fuel in the Navy by pulverised coal fuel. When I raised this question last year, several hon. Gentlemen opposite, who at one time held high command in the Navy, poured some amount of ridicule on the suggestion, and I gathered from what they had to say that they rather found some difficulty in going back to coal with its dust and inconvenience and soiling of their quarterdecks in the coaling period. Since that time I have been reinforced in my opinion, and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should deal with it in his reply, because last year the First Lord said not one word in reply. We are going to the other end of the world for oil fuel, when we have about 250,000 miners idle, villages and towns absolutely starving, tradesmen ruined, boards of guardians in tremendous debt, and people wondering whether their towns are going to continue in existence. We have the finest steam coal in the world, lending itself readily to pulverisation, and we are purchasing oil from abroad, which, in the case of another naval war, we might find much more difficult to obtain than our own coal. I see the First Lord has in his Estimates an item for oil storage at Ceylon which is estimated to cost £585,000.
When I spoke on this point 12 months ago, I suggested that it would be as easy to coal our naval vessels with pulverised coal fuel as it would be to take oil into their tank capacity through
a pipe. I illustrated to some degree what I meant, and, among other things, I dealt with the effect on the boilers and fire boxes of the vessels, or on any other boilers and fire boxes consuming either oil or coal fuel, and I showed that they would last longer with coal fuel than with oil fuel. I illustrated the ease with which they would be coaled without putting a speck on the admiral's quarterdeck, and I pointed to the general saving that would result to this country through using our own fuel. Since that time I have been fortified in my opinion because pulverised coal fuel is now being used in the manner which I described. There has been published in a great London organ, only as recently as the fourth of last month, a diagram of a coal fuel installation. It shows, as I suggested last year, the coal fuel being conveyed through a pipe and the whole internal economy of the installation of pulverised fuel on a large vessel. It may be news to the Admiralty that already in this country there is being used on land about 40,000,000 tons of pulverised coal fuel every year. If it can be used in other boilers, it can be used in exactly the same way in our naval vessels.
I am again fortified by no less an authority than a gentleman who served the Government for many years in an official capacity and who is now a consulting engineer, Sir Richard Redmayne. He recently expressed the opinion that it would be cheaper to use steam turbines with powdered fuel than internal-combustion engines. Within the last few days, the steamship "Mercer," belonging to the United States Shipping Board, has made a very successful voyage to Amsterdam burning pulverised coal instead of oil. That is a proof of what I stated about the ease with which the conversion could be made. No alteration in the boiler was in any way necessary to bring this heavy vessel across the Atlantic on pulverised coal fuel. That being so, I would ask the hon. Gentleman who now represents the interests of the Admiralty on the Front Bench, if some further consideration can be given to this matter. I respect the knowledge of naval officers on naval strategy and tactics, although I am amazed whenever there is a Debate on naval affairs to observe how they differ, but I would not give place to them in knowledge of combustion and the science of fire.
If it is suggested to the Admiralty by their naval experts that there is some greater difficulty in raising steam or in the safety of life of the fire-boxes and boiler on our Welsh steam coal, I would point out that steam can be raised as quickly and maintained at the necessary head as easily on pulverised coal as on any oil in the world, whether crude or clarified. The boiler and the fire-box, the most expensive part of the boiler installation of a battleship, will last longer burning coal than burning oil. Every one who knows the science of combustion knows that the less smoke the better your combustion, and I have seen British liners and British naval vessels burning oil turning out smoke as badly as if they were burning crude coal. Therefore, there is no difference in that respect, if a fire is not properly used.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: Was it done intentionally?

Mr. BROMLEY: No, I was speaking of times when there was no necessity whatever for creating smoke. I am simply pointing out that both fuels would raise smoke if not scientifically and carefully handled. I am claiming for coal an advantage in the boilers as against the use of oil. Further, the quarter-deck would be clean and spotless for our meticulous Admirals, because, as I described last year and as has now been shown in actual fact, the coal would come into the vessel through a pipe in the same way as oil, and the decks would be quite spotless. The engine-room would be as free from coal dust as it is from oil. Lastly, I would again repeat what to me is a very cogent argument. If the consumption of coal fuel makes no difference to the cost of upkeep of the fire-box and boiler of the naval vessel, if coal can be handled as easily and the vessels can be coaled as easily and as cleanly, then it comes to a question of difficulty in war-time, and I suggest to the hon. Member that, if we have a future combination of naval power, it might be advisable for us to get our coal here in a pulverised form than to have to convoy oil from all parts of the world. It strikes me as suicidal to be always purchasing foreign oil—and I think we have sacrificed men in warfare to get control of foreign oilfields—when we have the finest steam coal in the world and when we
have our miners unemployed, our villages, towns and countryside devastated. We would not do it in our homes or any ordinary business in which we were interested in any shape or form, but we do it to please old prejudices among people who want their quarter-decks clean.
The Admiralty last year could not even reply to the suggestion which I made with regard to examining its possibilities. I suggest, with all respect to those who want their vessels spick and span, that it ought to be of greater interest to this House, and to the Admiralty especially, to see that all our miners are employed, and that our own product is used rather than that we should use foreign oil when all the advantages are on the side of coal. I hope the Admiralty will give some further consideration to this matter. No change in the boiler or fire-box is necessary. The space required for pulverised coal fuel would be no greater than for oil. The only question would be some slight arrangement, so that, instead of the oil simply flowing to the nozzle which vaporises it into the fire-box, some steam or compressed air assistance would be given to convey it and to blow it into the fire-box in a finely powdered form. The fuel used in the vessel to which I referred was pulverised "as fine as a lady's face-powder", whatever degree of fineness that may be. That was the expression used to designate it. Having regard to the terrible position, the irrecoverable position in our own coalfields to-day, and having regard to the fact that there is no loss in fighting strength in general efficiency, the Admiralty ought to consider employing our own mine-fields, our own workpeople, rather than burning foreign coal which has no advantage beyond suiting the interests of some people who in the past induced them to adopt it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): We have had a most interesting Debate, and it would be advisable for me to try and answer now some of the questions raised. But, as a great deal of what has been said so far in this Debate applies more or less to the disarmament Amendment, which is coming on afterwards, my right hon. Friend the First Lord will deal with those matters which have been raised so far in this connection. I shall not attempt, in the short time
which I intend to occupy the attention of the House, to make any criticism or remarks upon the high policy which was propounded by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) or the ingenious scheme which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has for limiting armaments. My right hon. Friend the First Lord will no doubt deal with those points in the speech which he will make later on in the evening. A great many matters were raised by hone. Members, and it is quite possible I shall not be able to answer them all, because obviously time is an important factor to-night.
First of all, I should like, if I can, to allay the fears which, apparently, are in the minds of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on the subject of the naval staff. No one can be more agreed with both these hon. and gallant Members than I, and no economies in reductions will be made which will in any way affect the efficiency of the naval staff. It is perfectly true what the hon. and gallant Member said, that everything really depends for naval efficiency in war upon there being a thinking staff at the Admiralty in time of peace. There is no intention whatever on the part of the Board of Admiralty to reduce the efficiency of the naval staff.
The next question to which I propose to turn is the question of the dockyards, because it is a matter upon which I think a good deal of misapprehension exists. I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport, after making his attack, has retreated, and therefore will not have the advantage of hearing what I have to say. He has made so many statements with regard to our policy in the dockyards that it is high time, I think, that we should really examine more closely what he says. The great allegation which he always makes is that we do not give sufficient work to the dockyards in comparison with the work which we give to the private yards. The argument is—I do not think he used it in the House to-night but he continuously uses it outside the House—that most of the material used in the Royal Dockyards is purchased from contractors and that
in the course of a year the Admiralty pays large sums to the contractors for goods other than hulls and machinery of ships, and if these sums are included in the allocation of work to contractors the total payments to contractors are large in comparison with the expenditure in the dockyards. In other wards, that when we give work to the dockyards, we increase the work given to contractors. He seems to be surprised to find that the construction of a warship at one of His Majesty's dockyards necessarily entails correlated expenditure in other parts of the country. As a matter of fact, the labour charges incurred by the yard are the only ones that yard officers really control, as, obviously, you have to get materials, armour, gun and other machinery from specialist private firms. It is quite clear that even when you do build a ship in the dockyard a great deal of machinery and equipment must come from elsewhere. It seems unbelievable to me that anyone should announce as a great discovery that the expenditure on shipbuilding and ship repairing at the dockyard is not as great as the expenditure on all naval services. The point of the matter is, that during the last few years we have given more work to the dockyards than in the past, and it is the policy of the Board of Admiralty to do everything it can to prevent the discharges which are taking place as a result of there being less work to do.
When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport suggests that we are not to give our work elsewhere because these dockyards should get all the work that there is to be obtained, he is making a claim which it is perfectly impossible for the Government or the Board of Admiralty to entertain. In the distribution of work we have to consider the fact that there are great private dockyards which are essential to the interests of this country, and which must be kept up. We give as much work as we can to the Royal Dockyards, work which they are capable of undertaking economically, and other work which they are not capable of undertaking we have to give elsewhere. As a matter of fact, if you examine closely the wages that have been paid at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham during the three years 1924 to 1926 you will see that there has been a steady increase, and that has been during
the life of the present Government. At Devonport, for instance—and I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is not here to hear this—the amount of wages paid was £1,709,385 in 1924; it was 1,749,384 in 1925, and £1,817,830 in 1926, showing that there was a steady increase in the amount of wages paid during that period. This increase in wages paid was due to a variety of causes, one of the more important being the system of payment by results which has been adopted by the Admiralty. All that I can say is, that the charges that have been made against the Admiralty for neglecting the dockyards seem to be without foundation. When the hon. Member makes the statements that he does both inside and outside this House he is considering the dockyard town which he represents in the most admirable manner, but he is not always strictly accurate in his facts, and he is certainly not accurate in the deductions which he draws from them.
He again made an attack upon the Admiralty for not paying marriage allowance. He knows perfectly well that if it were left to the Admiralty the Admiralty would be only too anxious to do so. In these days of economy it is amusing to hear the hon. Member, because almost every suggestion he makes is a suggestion which will hardly bear out the policy of his party, which is, I understand, economy—[An HON. MEMBER: "With efficiency!"]—and economy at the expense of the fighting services. Every suggestion that the hon. Member made would most certainly lead to greater expenditure. The hon. and gallant Member alluded to what he called the reduction in the pay of the men. This is not absolutely true. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Western Stirling (Captain Fanshawe) very truly said, this decrease does not affect the men who were in the Service before it was brought into effect; it only affects new entries.
The majority of the questions of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), I think, can really be dealt with by my right hon. Friend, the First Lord, but there were certain questions on which I should like to say a word or two. He asked what was the decision with regard to the Indian Navy. I am not able to state the exact position in
regard to that Navy at the present moment because obviously it is a matter which has passed out of our control. I take it, that its future depends really upon the decision of the Indian Government. But I understand that the Indian Marine remains on the same footing as formerly and that the Indian Government have not decided yet as to what steps shall be taken as a result of the decision of the Indian Legislature. With regard to Singapore, it is no use discussing the matter of policy because that is a matter upon which there will always be two opinions but we are proceeding steadily with our policy and the graving dock is to be proceeded with later on.

Mr. AMMON: That is a reversal of policy.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No I do not think so

Mr. AMMON: Have the borings been finished? Have they started building, or are they still boring?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They are still boring I believe. The preliminary work is not yet finished.
I will return to the question that was raised the other day when, unfortunately, the House was counted out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By one of your supporters.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The only thing that resulted as far as I was concerned was, that I did not make the speech which I had intended. I think now is a, good opportunity because as the hon. and gallant Member says, it is a matter in which the House is much in terested. The Debate the other day showed, I think, that all sides of the House felt that there was something wrong. I can assure the House that the Admiralty are watching this matter very closely, but there is a great deal of misconception, not only with regard to the actual facts that were adduced in that Debate, but also in the conception of what the results would be if the new suggestion were adopted and the question of deciding what is attributable and what is not attributable were transferred from the medical authorities at the Admiralty to some outside body. I think
personally—and I have taken a good deal of trouble in examining the whole system—that my hon. Friend who initiated the Debate the other night was rather unduly pessimistic about the present procedure. I agree that from the psychological point of view there may be something in the suggestion that the officers and men themselves would be more satisfied if they had some kind of outside Board to which to go, but I would point out to the House that the independent tribunals which we know so well under the Ministry of Pensions were brought into existence to meet special circumstances arising from the War. It was then obvious that there were hundreds and thousands of cases in which the medical history of men could not possibly be ascertained in the ordinary way. Therefore it was probably quite necessary—indeed I am certain it was—to set up those special tribunals. But in the case of a Service like the Navy in ordinary times the medical history of a man is known from the first moment he comes on board and his whole history is kept throughout his career; every detail of his case is known, and the doctors who form the survey Board before whom his case comes in the event of his being brought forward for invaliding are men who are perfectly familiar with the kind of service he has had and are therefore better fitted almost than anybody else to judge whether the illness from which he is suffering is due to the service or not. I would also point out that in every way the man who comes before such a Survey Board has on his side, as far as is possible, the doctors, and is given every chance of stating his case and of calling witnesses, if necessary.

Mr. GROVES: That is not so.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Does the hon. Member deny that?

Mr. GROVES: I dispute that. I spoke on the subject the other evening.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I did not want to trouble the House with too much detail, because there are a great many other questions which I desire to answer, but as this is an important subject and one which has aroused considerable interest, and as we could not have the Debate the other day, perhaps the House
will forgive me if I give particulars of the procedure which is adopted for bringing forward a case for survey.

Mr. MORRIS: The hon. and gallant Member referred to the difference between these cases and cases which came before the Ministry of Pensions. In the case of men who served during the War, surely their medical history is known all the way through.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I think not, because many of the men, who joined the Army and Navy during the War, did so for the period of the War; many of them were conscripted, and so on, and nobody knew anything about them. There was quite a different position from that of men who go into the Navy as boys and serve their whole life in the Service. The medical history of men in the Service can be traced in a far easier way than that of the others. That is what, I meant when I referred to the peculiar circumstances arising in the War. Let me tell the House exactly what the Board of Survey does. When an officer or rating in hospital or serving in a ship or establishment is considered to be unfit for further service, he is brought forward for survey, with a view to invaliding. Medical Boards of Survey are held twice in each month under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief or Senior Officer present. The Board consists of the medical officer-in-charge of the hospital, who acts as president, and three medical officers, two of whom are senior medical officers of the hospitals and one a senior medical officer of the Fleet or depot. It has been suggested that there should be an executive officer on the Survey Board. This matter has been very carefully considered by the Admiralty, and the general opinion is that nothing would be gained by reverting to a practice which was abandoned in 1914. The questions to be decided are of a purely medical nature, and the presence of an executive officer would not strengthen the tribunal. He would either interfere with the medical officers in the performance of their duties or would be a mere figurehead and wasting his time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not he decide, if the doctors disagree?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait he
will see that this is provided for. The case is placed before the Board and the medical officer who brings the case forward appears before the Board in order that the surveying officers may receive the fullest information concerning the case. A complete history of each case is made out, showing the details of the onset, course and final state of the disability for which the patient is being surveyed. Prior to survey, each officer or rating is given a form to fill in, on which he is requested to state what, in his opinion, is the cause of his disability. The Board of Survey is required to investigate and record an opinion, whether the disability is attributable to, or aggravated by, service (prewar, war, or post-war), and, if not, to what specific condition it is attributed. These reports of the Board of Survey, with a statement by the officer or man concerned, are sent to the Commander-in-Chief, who is an executive officer, and who has all the facts before him, and he comes to his decision.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are we to understand that the Medical Survey Board simply decide the case from the history sheets of the man and, however difficult the diagnosis may be, they form their opinion as to attributability or not purely on the record of the man's medical history?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have given a full description of what the Board of Survey does on the medical side of the case. They see the man.

Dr. DAVIES: You did not say that they saw the man. You said that they saw his medical sheets and record.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They also see the man's statement. The man can put forward such evidence as he likes. The case, having been settled by the Board of Survey, it comes before the Commander-in-Chief, and he then decides whether the man shall be invalided or not. Then the case is sent to the Admiralty. Every case is carefully scrutinised and investigated by the medical authorities at the Admiralty, who examine all the records bearing on the case. Here all the relevant facts are ascertained by reference to reports and records received from the ships or establishments in which the man has served. A complete record is obtained
if considered necessary, of the individual's medical history from the date of his joining the Navy. Everything is straightforward.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: Who decides as to whether the disability is attributable to service or not? That is the important point.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am trying to explain that this is a medical decision arrived at by medical officers on the Survey Board. It is then passed on to the Commander-in-Chief, who decides whether the man is to be invalided out or not. The question of attributability is settled by the medical officers at the Admiralty. After the survey the medical officers at the Admiralty have to make a decision as to whether the man is to be invalided and whether the disease is or is not attributable to or aggravated by service.

Mr. MACKINDER: It is done purely on the history of his case and not by personal examination.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They have all the papers before them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Everything, except the patient.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and gallant Member is always in such a hurry. What I want the House to understand is this, that if there is any bias in a case of this kind the bias is on the side of the man, as far as the judges are concerned. They belonged to the same service. It does not really affect them whether he gets a pension or not. It is clear that if they could give him a pension they would do so. The idea that seems to get about that the Board of Admiralty have a bias in this matter, and that the dice is loaded against the individual sailor or officer, is totally wrong.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I am not clear as to whether the attributability decided by the Admiralty is independent of the decision as to attributability made by the Survey Board.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Appeals for reconsideration of awards may be put forward either by the individual himself, or the British Legion, or a trade union, or a benevolent society, or a Member of Parliament, or anybody else. The regulations
upon which the attributability or aggravation are assessed are set out in a secret and confidential memorandum to the surveying officers. These are rules which guide the doctors in deciding whether the case is attributable to service or not.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether these secret and confidential documents can be furnished for the information of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: These regulations are based on the Report of the Post-War Disability Committee, and are applicable to eases arising in the Navy, Army and Air Force. As far as I know, the rules in themselves are not secret.

Dr. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Member knows that the great difficulty is tuberculosis. That is what we want to get at, and not post-War disabilities.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I did not say post-War disabilities only. As to post-War disabilities, I would beg hon. Members to remember that there are other diseases besides tuberculosis. In general, I would say that there is very little justification for the attacks that are made against the existing system. It may be perfectly fair to say that the rules by which these matters are judged are too severe, and that the doctors are not given sufficient latitude. That may quite easily be the case, and from the point of view of the people affected that may be hard, but to blame the existing authorities is not fair, and the charge that the Board of Admiralty is not the proper judge in the final resort in these cases has, I think, not been substantiated. It is very curious in regard to the cases of the year 1920 to which the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle) referred when he introduced this matter the other day, that the tribunal which turned them down was not the medical authorities at the Admiralty or the Board of Admiralty, but an independent appeal tribunal acting under the Ministry of Pensions. The truth of the matter is that, whatever the tribunal may be, it is the rules and regulations by which it is bound that must decide its judgments. It is the rules that are of importance, and not the tribunal.
There is also a good deal of misunderstanding as to what is exactly meant by the fitness of a particular man when he gets into the Navy. Some people seem to imagine that because a candidate is successful in getting into the Navy he must be absolutely healthy in every respect. I will not go into that now. It may or may not be so. It simply means that an examination, for what it is worth, has found nothing sufficiently wrong to make it impossible for that man to enter the Navy, but it does not in any way show that he is a good life for all purposes.
This is, however, a matter which the Admiralty agree requires the most careful attention. We are looking into it from every aspect. Not only is there a Joint Committee sitting now and examining the matter of attributability in all its aspects, but we have referred the whole question as regards hygienic conditions in the Navy to a special Medical Consultative Board of outside specialists, and we are awaiting the reply from those specialists to guide us to a certain extent in the policy that we shall pursue. We feel that the present system regarding invaliding, and the adjudication of attributability or otherwise, is a fair system, but we want to be perfectly sure—

Mr. GROVES: What about the case I dealt with? How did the medical authorities arrive at the conclusion that a man suffering from Sandfly was suffering from what was of constitutional origin? The man died in the London Hospital, and the doctors there decided that he got the disease in the East.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Obviously I have already occupied more time than I ought to have taken. If the hon. Member will send me details of that particular case, I will certainly see if anything can be done about it.

Mr. GROVES: I already have your replies here. The first reply is signed by the First Lord.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Then the case has obviously been examined already. The point that I want to emphasise now is that we are seriously exercising our minds about this matter. We are examining it in detail, and we shall certainly do everything in our power to see that these cases are properly and
fairly judged. That applies to tuberculosis as well as all other cases. We realise that the health of the Navy is of primary importance. It is very easy to exaggerate the facts about tuberculosis in the Navy. The truth is that the incidence of the disease seems to be rather less in the Navy than in civilian life. We know more about it in the Navy because the conditions of inspection are such that we find out the cases very early, whereas in civilian life they may escape observation for a considerable period of time. I can assure the House that we are fully alive to the situation.
Now with regard to coal fuel. What I am going to say will not entirely satisfy hon. Members opposite. This also is a matter which is being closely watched by the Admiralty. At the present time the opinion seems to me that, although, undoubtedly, pulverised coal as a fuel is being used in merchant ships and is being found satisfactory, it is not sufficiently developed to satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty. However, I can assure the hon. Member who raised this subject, that what he says about the desirability of using coal is fully apparent to me, and that I shall do my utmost to see that everything that can be done in the way of watching the development of this new fuel will be done in the Admiralty. Our experts are in close touch with the matter.

Mr. MACKINDER: Have any experiments or tests been carried out by the Admiralty?

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Are there any private persons on that expert committee, or are they all naval men?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is no prejudice in the matter at all. We are out for what we believe to be the best, and as soon as it can be proved that pulverised coal is the best, I shall be very much surprised if we do not adopt it. There is no other object in view but that.

Mr. BROMLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been exceedingly courteous and it is not kind to keep him longer at this late hour. When these experts bring their conflicting reports on the consumption of coal or oil fuel, will the Admiralty bear in mind the home consumption
to the plight of our British coalfields as against foreign oil?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We are watching every kind of experiment that is being carried out, and the obvious desire on our part is to do everything we can to help the mining industry of this country.

DISARMAMENT.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacNEILL-WEIR: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House considers that national security and therefore international peace can only be assured by international agreement for a substantial all-round reduction in naval armaments, and accordingly urges His Majesty's Government to take the initiative in making proposals for the abolition of capital ships, as well as of submarines, and for the restriction of the maximum tonnage of cruisers to that necessary for police purposes.
Before descending to the strictly controversial side of my Amendment, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty on the great Department of which he is the head. Perhaps it has been too seldom done on this side of the House. Perhaps we have too seldom found a meed of praise for that great, characteristically British institution, the Royal Navy. It is called the silent Service, and reticence has been due to the fact that people do not know and appreciate the great work of the Navy in time of peace. It is difficult to understand and believe that no ship of any nation, under any flag, from any port, could sail the seas were it not for the work of the British Navy. The British Navy has been used to put down piracy and slavery. It has charted unknown reefs; it has marked perilous shoals; it has traced the course of dangerous currents. In saving human life, the British Navy has a record of heroism and devotion. How often do we read in the public Press that on such and such a day an S.O.S. was received by His Majesty's ship, which immediately went at all speed to the help of a stricken vessel, and the last report was that His Majesty's cruiser was standing by? The British Navy has attained a magnificent prestige. It has maintained and cherished the noble traditions of the great brotherhood of the seas.
My Amendment is an Amendment of peace and disarmament. Year after year the party to which I belong has laid before this House the broad principles of its policy in that direction. I wish my Amendment to-night to be taken as a token Amendment rather than as one which is comprehensive of our whole policy. I believe that the Amendment indicates the first steps to be taken towards peace and disarmament. Nearly 10 years ago the Great War finished—the "war to end war," when we sheathed a sword which, according to the late Lord Oxford, had not been lightly drawn, and honour and right and justice were said to have been enthroned in Europe. That was 10 years ago. The German Emperor was driven from his throne; the second greatest Navy in the world was surrendered; a great military Power had to surrender and reduce her army; a first-class nation had to recede into the position of a third or fourth-class Power. That was a bitter pill for any proud nation to swallow. But there was one consideration which mitigated the harsh conditions imposed on Germany. The Peace Treaty assured Germany that, although the Allied Powers had imposed these drastic limitations on her military and naval power, yet they had no desire to humiliate Germany; still less was their motive one of vindictive revenge. But, they said, these limitations upon Germany are really the first stage of worldwide limitation of armament. Great Britain, France, the United States, and Italy solemnly assured the German nation that in signing the Treaty they were really inaugurating a great limitation policy for the whole world.
What has happened since then? These Estimates have come out—Estimates for the Air, Estimates for the Army and Estimates for the Navy. They show very little diminution of expenditure. I know that they have been compared with the Estimates of 1919 to show what great progress has been made in the way of disarmament. But in 1919 we were at the height of our military and naval power. We were armed to the teeth. Armaments were five, six, seven and sometimes 20 times what they had been before the War. Nor is it just to compare the Estimates to-day with the Estimates of 1914, because the Navy Estimates also at that time were inflated. In 1914, we were in the midst of a great struggle
for naval supremacy with Germany. We were laying down two keels to one. We cannot, therefore, compare that period with the present time, when Germany has no Navy to speak of. What have the people who composed these Estimates learned from the War? What has the bureaucracy behind the scenes learned of the great moral lesson of the War? You can read through these Estimates, and you cannot find one hint that a single lesson has been learned from the great tragedy of four years of war. It is not their job. To them war is inevitable. Some of these experts seem to think war is even desirable. It is a curious psychological phenomenon—what might be called the watertight compartment brain, which some of these bureaucrats have. Bureaucrats and experts seem to be able to shut out from their minds all moral considerations. It was that kind of mind which caused the War, not only abroad but in this country as well. Let me illustrate. Some time ago a book was published containing the diary of Sir Henry Wilson, and it is a very interesting and illuminating volume. These diaries contain a very close record of Sir Henry Wilson's doings during the period before the War and also during the War.
Who was the late Sir Henry Wilson? He was a soldier among soldiers. He was the chief of the Imperial General Staff. He was a genius for strategy and tactics. His job was waging a successful war, and he devoted his whole life to the task. He ruthlessly shut out from his mind every other consideration. His job was to perfect the war machine. Peace! What was peace to him, a military strategist? Disarmament! Absolute madness. The whole idea was shattered by one question: How can you wage war without soldiers, and what is the good of an army if you do not have a war? So it is with bureaucracy of the Foreign Office, which is a mere information bureau for the Army and Navy. In France and in Germany and in Russia you have the opposite numbers to the bureaucrats in our own country, and to all these war is the consummation of a life's work. The only consideration these people seem to have is: Are we ready? and the only question is:Which side can be ready first? The civilian politicians
might raise slobbery sentiment about peace and disarmament, but when the zero hour struck the soldier had to get on with the job, and his job was to kill more of the enemy's forces than the enemy could kill of his. It was these political fellows, they said, who signed the Treaty of 1919; it was they who pledged Britain's honour. The soldier and the strategist having finished the last War had to get on with the next. The League of Nations was an emotional enthusiasm. Geneva was a foolish notion—forget it.
Here we have the Navy Estimates, formidable and portentous. I do not know in what category Charles Lamb would put this book. I wonder if any Herculaneum raker has delved into its hidden mysteries? By no stretch of imagination can you conceive of this becoming a "best seller." I am somewhat intrigued with the volume. It is as scientific as a mathematical diagram, as literary as a railway time-table, as bright as the Book of Job, as picturesque as a poultice, and as interesting as a post office directory. There it is, a portentous tome. But it is sinister in its meaning, it is cruel and brutal in its implication. We all love and admire the genial gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is innocent, childlike and bland, but behind the right hon. Gentleman there stand the sinister figures of the bureaucrats. He brings this volume before the House with his innocent smile, but behind him are the blood and iron bureaucrats, these furtive schemers who sit in their secret chambers playing that age-long game,
Their high chess game, whereof the pawns are men.
I do not say that nothing has been done in the cause of peace and disarmament, but the very size of this volume says that it is very little. Since these Estimates were brought forward last year, we have had the Coolidge Conference, to which reference has already been made several times to-day. That Conference failed, and failed for one reason. It was destroyed by the bureaucrats, who looked at the great question of peace for which it was called from the wrong angle. Instead of asking what arms we need, what navies we need, we should have asked, what do we want navies and armies for at all? That question was
never faced. The talk was about technicalities, the size of cruisers and size of guns, and the vital principles were missed. I noticed that President Coolidge has thrown the blame on Great Britain. He has said that while Japan was willing to accommodate Great. Britain would not, and the result has been suspicion and ill-will. Last year when these Estimates were brought forward, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) asked this question:
Why always leave America to take the lead in these questions of peace and disarmament. We want the First Lord of the Admiralty to get in first this time, and make a speech which will stagger humanity and send him down to history as one of the greatest naval revolutionaries of the world.
I have in my hand the speech that was to stagger humanity. I have secured, as Mr. Speaker says, a copy of it for the purposes of greater accuracy. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said at the Coolidge Conference:
We therefore proposed to extend the life and reduce the tonnage and armament of those classes of warships already limited by the Washington Treaty, which would have reduced the cost of replacement very considerably. Limitation in size and armament of the other classes of warships and ages for replacement were also proposed in order to secure economy in the replacement of ships as they became obsolete.
I am surprised at that speech. Here is the First Lord of the Admiralty dealing with the richest nation in the world and offering them economy as the only incentive. Britain comes forward as a needy mendicant,
I will put money in thy purse,
and says: We propose this not because we like it, but
My poverty hut not my will consents.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not a quotation from my speech.

Mr. MacNEILL-WEIR: No.
My poverty but not my will consents.
is a quotation from a deceased English-Gentleman, Mr. Shakespeare—[Interruption]—a gentleman almost as great as the First Lord of the Admiralty. The principle of the Convention of the League of Nations regarding armaments is from this point of view, that the member States should no longer rely for their security upon their own unaided efforts, but that on the contrary it must be guaranteed by the League of Nations, to which
all re bound. A simultaneous reduction of armaments in potential, hostile Powers is in itself an important factor in promoting security in each disarming State. Neither of these two principles, the principles of co-operation in disarmament, and co-operation in security, were ever mentioned at all during the whole of the Coolidge Conference.
The right hon. Gentleman has made several speeches in this House and outside on this question, and his justification is that he could not risk British security. He said, and said truly, that we were dependent on our overseas trade. That is perfectly true. Seven weeks would Leave us on the verge of starvation. Our raw material for our industries and our food supplies come from the ends of the earth. We have 80,000 miles of sea to guard. On 1st April, 1926, there were 9,500,000 tons of British shipping round the Seven Seas. To protect that shipping and to protect these trade routes the First Lord says we must have six cruisers. I call attention to what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said on one occasion in this connection:
We feel that our island Empire is dependent for its inherent and integral existence and indeed for its daily bread upon our power to keep open the paths across the ocean. If those paths could be closed at the will of another, the integral life of the British Empire and even the independence of its various parts would no longer rest in our own keeping.
Those were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the British trade routes must be kept open. The present proposal is that 70 cruisers can perform that task. We have laid it down that, no matter how other nations may limit their armaments, we must have 70 cruisers. I ask the House to think of what this means. It means 25 cruisers with the battle fleet, 12, on the average, fitting and fuelling and 33 for the job of guarding the trade routes. That means one cruiser for 2,500 miles. challenge the First Lord to say that anyone of authority in his Department regards that number as sufficient.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the hon. Member want more?

Mr. MacNEILL-WEIR: According to the right hon. Gentleman's principle, this Estimate should be ten times its present size. If this is going to be the purpose of the Navy, then the present
Estimate is quite inadequate. I wish to view the matter in another way. I do not believe in arming, over and over again. We have our own policy, and this is not the way to deal with the problem. I want to show how futile it is to expect that 70 cruisers—really 33 cruisers—can tackle this gigantic task. Not 70 but 300 cruisers would be required for it. Why, it, took 70 cruisers to hunt down the "Emden"—70 cruisers to one raider. We were fighting against the naval forces of Germany in the Great War. It happens that the exit from Germany is a bottle-neck, very easily guarded and as easily blockaded, and Admiral Jellicoe has said that it would be a thousand times more difficult to guard our trade routes against any other Power. Yet, I repeat, it took 70 cruisers to chase the "Emden," and we know the damage which the "Emden" did. How, then, can you expect one cruiser to guard 2,500 miles? During the War the raiders destroyed 250,000 tons of British shipping and 39,000 tons of allied shipping. Could you blockade America? How many "Emdens" will there be in the next war? You cannot possibly protect commerce in this way. Before the War our sea supremacy was unchalleneged. We had two keels for one, and Lord Fisher said we could sleep soundly in our beds. It was the British Navy that kept our foes at bay. If I may be allowed to quote again from the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Nothing in the world, nothing that you may think of or dream about or that anybody may tell you about, no arguments however specious, no appeals however seductive, must lead you to abandon that naval supremacy on which the life of our country depends. We must retain that naval supremacy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place. I know there is some disagreement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord with regard to parity. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all he has said, has to abandon the idea of supremacy. He is boggling a little on the question of equality with America, but the First Lord has admitted parity with America. Sea supremacy has gone. We have no longer the two-Power standard. The two-Power standard was intelligible and logical. It was, in some degree, comparable with the risks and needs of the times, but what about parity? What
about the new proposal of 5, 5, 3 as between Britain, America and Japan? The Prime Minister has said that the English race is not a logical race. Well, sentiment is fine. Sentiment may start a war, but it is the coldest of cold logic which must wage and win it. If we contemplate the possibility of war, then these Estimates are ridiculous. If we do not contemplate the possibility of war, then they are superfluous.
There is one other side of this question of defence to which I would like to draw attention and that is the great advance in the science of aviation, which has greatly added to the terrors of war. The new menace lies in aircraft and the ability of aircraft to strike both at merchant shipping at sea, and at the docks, so as to prevent ships from discharging foodstuffs, raw materials and other cargoes. Aircraft can also strike at the surface warships by means of which only can merchant shipping be convoyed and protected. Last September, General Groves, who was director of aircraft operations in 1918, said that all surface craft within 500 miles of hostile shores would be within reach of attack by shore-based aeroplanes; that we could no longer command the narrow seas and the home waters of Europe, no matter how many battleships and cruisers we had, nor could we assure, as in the past, the safe passage of our shipping through the Mediterranean.
Remarkable corroboration of this contention has been found in a book which was published the other day, entitled "Armaments and the Non-combatant," by C. F. Spanner. Who is Mr. Spanner? He is a member of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, a member of the Institute of Naval Architects, he is a naval architect assessor to the Board of Trade, the inventor of the "duct keel" system of ship construction and the "soft-ended" ship, he has invented the Spanner strain indicator, and he has written a formidable list of technical and scientific works on naval architecture. Clearly he is an authority, and he has written a book to prove that the British Navy can no longer safeguard our trade routes. I wonder if the First Lord has read the book yet. No answer! With a wealth of argument and illustration, Mr. Spanner goes on to show that battleships
ships have always found their chief difficulty in hitting other vessels at the great distances at which these vessels at present have to fight. When we realise that a battleship, which becomes a speck on the horizon, has to fire at another speck on the horizon, we see the difficulty that there must be in making hits, and we know that in fine weather and with a calm sea the hits are only from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the projectiles at most, and even in two dimensional shooting against slow moving targets, you cannot claim to be well off in weapons of precision. What then can be expected against swiftly moving aeroplanes which carry bombs and torpedoes? The idea that battleships can be defended by antiaircraft guns is ridiculous, and if battleships cannot stand up, what chance has merchant shipping, and what chance have we for security for our trade routes?
The professor goes on to show that, even without destroying a single merchant ship, enemy aircraft could absolutely blockade and starve the British Isles. They could do so by smashing the docks, without which the cargoes of merchant shipping could not be discharged. Mr. Spanner's book has an illustration to show the chaos and confusion which would happen in London if the gates of the Victoria Docks were struck by a missile from an aeroplane. I thought when I read this book that he would go in strongly for disarmament and peace, but no. Strange to say, this gentleman has the bureaucratic mind, the watertight compartment brain, and he, like other experts, thinks that nothing can be done unless along the line of his own department. On his job he is a realist and he is a strong advocate of military aviation and of maintaining and extending a great Air Force. The reason he gives for saying that international agreements are impossible is interesting. He says that you cannot get international agreement because there has never existed any honest desire among professional fighting men for any agreement. M. Clemenceau said in 1915 that the War had become too serious for generals. There is no hope of peace from the expert, no hope of disarmament by material means. The only hope is from the political side of the question.
There is one other point upon which I wish to touch, and that is the question
of the freedom of the seas. We claim the right of blockade. When we look at it from the point of view of the Germans, the Swedes, or the Dutch, we see how it affects them. Germany alone lost 760,000 of her inhabitants as a result of the blockade, and Sweden was one whole year with almost no imports. We chose at will great islands for protection, destruction, or attack merely because of political sympathies. When we remember these things and the famine in Vienna in 1915 and 1916, we cannot wonder why other nations challenge our right to blockade their shores. America demands freedom of the seas, and for centuries or more she has held this ideal. We talk of contraband and non-contraband, but during the last War we found that that was impossible, and we had to set about stopping all enemy and non-Allied shipping. Now, there lies the danger of war with America. The First Lord said at Geneva that he did not understand why Americans wanted to build a lot of heavy cruisers with 8-inch guns and long steaming range. An American admiral, Admiral Niblack, supplies the answer. He says the old American principles of freedom of the seas "went glimmering" during the Great War, but, he added, "America has learned her lesson." We know that Germany and America nearly became allies at one period during the Great War.
The only solution to this question is by accepting the second of President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which was "that the seas should only be closed in peace or in war by international agreement for the enforcement of international covenants," which would mean, of course, that we would join with the other nations in renunciation of private war and private blockade. This is the only way to bring peace, and in this Motion we are asking Great Britain to make a great gesture. A nation's greatness does not depend on the extent of its territories, the strength of its Army, or the power of its Navy. The test of a nation's greatness is a moral test—indeed, a spiritual test. Righteousness alone exalteth a nation. We of the Labour party are sometimes accused of being friends of every country but our own. The charge is unworthy and untrue. We do love our country, and we believe that it is the greatest country in the world.
We are proud of her courage, her integrity, her sense of justice, her glorious traditions, and her noble achievements. But we are solicitous of her honour and jealous of her moral prestige. As we look abroad to-day, east or west. we see a great change coming over the outlook of people. Old standards are passing away, new ideals are taking their place; there is arising in the minds of the common people a desire for peace. Peace is the cry of the nations. They are waiting for a lead. Is it too much to expect that this great nation should give that lead? We do not move this Amendment from unpatriotic motives. On the contrary, we do it because of our pride in our country, because we sincerely believe that now is the opportunity for Great Britain to take that place in that moral leadership of the world which we believe is her duty, her right, and her destiny.

Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to second the Amendment.
Some 55 years ago, on the 8th of July, 1873, a, fellow-countryman of mine stood up in this House and moved a Motion in the following terms:
That a Humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct her principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with foreign powers with a view to the further improvement of international law, and to the establishment of a permanent system of international arbitration.
The Mover of that Motion was the Rev. Henry Richards, who for more than 40 years filled with conspicuous ability the very office which I have had the honour to hold outside this House. Greatly to the surprise but greatly to the credit of the House, the Motion was passed by 10 votes, and I cannot help but feel that if successive Governments during the last 50 years had tried to carry out, and to interpret and adopt the spirit expressed in that Resolution, these enormous Navy Estimates would have been unnecessary, and I should not have stood here seconding this Amendment. That Resolution marked an epoch in the international world. It really brought a league of nations and an International Court of Justice for the first time within the realm of practical politics; for the first time in the history of the world a parliament endorsed the
principle that the proper method of dealing with international disputes was by the arbitrament of law, and not by the arbitrament of war. I cannot expect to emulate the eloquence of Mr. Richards, nor can I speak with his authority, but I do want to urge upon this House that armaments are inseparably bound up with the adoption and application of the principle endorsed in that Resolution passed by this House 55 years ago.
I regret that in a discussion of this kind one must confine oneself to the Navy Estimates. It would be greatly to the benefit of this House if every year we could have a full and general discussion upon armaments generally, because the Army, Navy and Air Force are so closely connected and interrelated that it is almost impossible to discuss one adequately without trespassing upon the province of the other. I shall not enter into a detailed or technical discussion upon ships, and upon their size or character, for two simple and, I submit, very sound reasons. The first is that I am neither competent nor capable of entering into a technical discussion of these matters. The second is that I am firmly of the opinion that behind all armament is policy, and that really it is the policy which is pursued that determines the nature, character and extent of the armaments that have to be adopted. Several compliments have been paid to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty; I should also like to pay him a compliment. It is this. I do not really believe that the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and advocates the spending of money for the mere sake of spending it. I believe, quite honestly, that he would gladden the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by moving a drastic reduction of the expenditure, if he could do so really feeling that he was not jeopardising any legitimate British interest. I feel that both he and his advisers really believe that this expenditure is essential and necessary for the safety and security of this nation.
The question I want to ask is: Why is it deemed necessary that this enormous amount of money should be spent in this way? As one who has had many opportunities of getting into touch with opinion in various countries, I have no hesitation
in saying that one of the reasons why there is no real reduction in expenditure upon our Navy is the breakdown of the Naval Conference last year. I feel with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the Government has never realised or understood the widespread disappointment which was caused by the failure of that Conference. It has created in many circles intense disappointment. That has had a very bad effect upon international relations. In America, it has irritated and annoyed very greatly large masses of people. They believe—I think mistakenly—that the Conference was used by the British Government as an opportunity for challenging the United States, and that having challenged them the British Government deliberately and of set purpose broke up the Conference. I do not share that opinion. I think it is a mistaken and a wrong opinion, but we have to face facts, and the fact is that that opinion is held by very large masses of people in the United States. Apparently, they seem to find support for that opinion in the action and the speech of Lord Cecil, and in the repudiation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what is known as parity. The tragic part is that, however mistaken and ill-founded these views may be, they certainly create bad feeling, and, unfortunately, it is from these misconceptions and misunderstandings that wars between nations often arise. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who some years ago said that nine-tenths of the disputes that had arisen between nations, many of which had resulted in war, were due to a misunderstanding of each other's purposes. It is our ditty to try to remove these misunderstandings and to create a better feeling.
I share the views of the Mover of the Amendment that the great cause of the present situation is the breakdown of the Conference, due, I really believe, to the question of the freedom of the seas. America has placed great importance upon that end being achieved, and I feel that until this question of the freedom of the seas is properly faced, there is very little hope of getting any real understanding between the various countries. I would appeal to the Government to face that situation, and to try to visualise the point of view of those who cannot see eye to eye with us. The old idea that
Britannia rules the waves by Heaven's command must be subordinated to the larger international interests and the newer conditions created by the complete change in international relations.
In making one or two general observations before I sit down, I wish to emphasise the statement of the Mover that those who advocate peace are prompted just as much by patriotic motives as those who advocate war. We believe that the best security for the nation lies in pursuing a peaceful policy and not in building up huge armaments. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) said the other day that the best way to secure peace was to prepare for war, but the maxim based on that old Latin tag has been exploded over and over again, and experience has proved it to be worthless. In the past we have prepared for war, but we have not prevented wars. In support of that assertion I would like to quote a greater authority even than the hon. Member for Royton. General Maurice, one of the most distinguished soldiers in the last War, wrote:
I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must, thoroughly and efficiently prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war you will get war.
Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson, after 50 years' experience in the Army, says:
Instead of preventing war, armaments are apt to precipitate it.
We feel that in urging a reduction in naval armaments we are not in any way jeopardising the security or the best interests of this country, but that in reality we are promoting that security and placing it upon a safer foundation. The hon. Member for Royton has said that those of us who advocate disarmament and urge ideals of peace never take human nature into consideration. Human nature being what it is, he said, this thing cannot be done. All I wish to say on that is that human nature never is what it was, and never will be what it is. Human nature is not static, it is always in a state of flux. Perhaps the only thing that would convince some men of this would be to introduce them to their prehistoric grandfathers, and then they might believe it. We believe that human nature is changing and can be changed, and we believe that human nature is much more ready to pursue
a peaceful policy than His Majesty's Government imagine. Therefore, in seconding this Amendment, I do so because I feel conscientiously that the Government are not pursuing peace with half the zeal with which they pursue the preparations for war. I believe the Government have a great opportunity, and I hope this Amendment may stir them to greater efforts in future. Peace and security are not, and ought not to be made, questions of party politics. The security and peace of the world are of much more importance than party issues. I think the Government might have done more than they have done, and I hope that next year we shall have made much greater progress towards peace and good will among men.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: First of all, may I congratulate the Seconder of the Amendment upon the charming disarmament speech he made to-night? On these Estimates we usually have to listen to speeches favouring disarmament, and on this side of the House we may regard ourselves as having become experienced judges of them. I would like to tell the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) that we have never listened to a speech on disarmament which we enjoyed better than we enjoyed his own. May I also say a word of congratulation to the Mover of the Amendment, because of the tribute he paid to the Royal Navy? I sometimes think the Royal Navy resent criticisms which are passed upon them occasionally in these Debates, and he was wise enough to discriminate, and to put the Royal Navy and the policy of the Government into separate categories. He showed no criticism of the Navy; he "went for" the Government, which is the prerogative of everybody in this House and is, of course, the duty of the Opposition. But he did, I think, introduce a somewhat novel method of debating. He quoted at some length from the writings of a Mr. Spanner. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do if, at the end, you are going to agree with what Mr. Spanner says. We spent a long time listening to the opinion of Mr. Spanner, but at the end the hon. Member said that he did not agree with him. The length of speeches will become even longer and more intolerable if this course is further adopted.
We have heard to-night much criticism of the Government and their policy with regard to the reduction of naval armaments. I rather resent the attitude taken up by the Opposition of picturing the United States in a surplice with a golden halo. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), with some hereditary instinct due to his grandfather who, he said. served in the American Navy, was very severe from that point of view. After all, I stand for a naval dockyard town where the desire to build an enormous number of ships would naturally be very great. The only trouble I find is not that the Admiralty have diminished the number of ships, but that they have given their orders to private dockyards instead of to the Royal Dockyards. I could elaborate that argument, if there were time to do it, but probably I shall have another opportunity later on.
I want to bring to the notice of the House the events which led up to the original Washington Conference because I think they are of outstanding importance and they seem to have been forgotten by many hon. Members. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us later on if what I say is substantially accurate. At the end of the War the United States wished to go one better than England in the way of building capital ships. Like this country the United States has her great armament firms. The electric industry in America is a very strong one, and they felt that they were not getting enough out of building ships. Against the advice of the English Admiralty they determined to build their new great capital ships with electrical drive instead of gearing their turbines. That was a great departure in the building of great ships. The enormous power obtained in a capital ship may not be realised. Sometimes it amounts to 150,000 horsepower, or very nearly half as much again as the horsepower developed in our great power station at Barking. The electricians in charge of a power station have little to do when things are going well, but such things as electrical surges are liable now and again to occur, and when they do occur the men who run great power stations earn in a few hours their keep for the whole year.
When a thing like that occurs in an iron-clad ship nobody knows what is going to happen. Scientists have done their best, but they cannot keep rats out of a ship. The one thing rats want to eat is the insulation, and you cannot insulate your cables properly. Here you had some of the biggest ships ever contemplated, half built, and it looked very much as if America was going to be made the laughing stock of the world because these ships were not going to succeed. Is it wrong to assume that that was a very good time to make a gesture for disarmament? The Washington Conference was nothing but an excuse for scrapping ships which would not work.
I want the First Lord of the Admiralty to tell me whether the facts are as I have stated them to-night. Of course I do not ask anybody to draw the same conclusions from them as I have done. It would be a sinister reflection on the idealism of the Washington Conference if it was based on the fact that ships had been built which would not work. Let me turn from that subject to our responsibility as compared with other people's responsibility in what is called the armament race. Hon. Members will recollect that some years ago Chili and Peru asked the United States to come to a decision on a difficult question with regard to a small place called Erica in the North of South America. President Coolidge was asked to arbitrate, but he could not come down on one side or the other and he gave as a sop to Peru two submarines at a cheap price.
The result of these cheap submarines to Peru was that Chili immediately ordered destroyers to compete with the submarines. The argentine then said that, as Chili had got destroyers, they must have some cruisers, and so the race for armaments has gone on in South America. Thank goodness there is nobody on the Opposition side of the House who can blame us on this side for that. I must say that we derived a certain amount of benefit because the Argentine placed her orders for cruisers in this country. I have given these two examples to-night to show that after all the world is still not the ideal world from the point of view of human nature that we should like to see it. That over
on the other side of the Atlantic the people are not all angels just as on this side we are not all the reverse.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I do not rise so much to make a speech as to elicit information. I do not desire to dwell on what some of us regard as the failings of the Government in the past. I am more anxious to know what the Government are going to do in the future. I conceive that this nation and the world generally are in a very critical position with regard to the question now under consideration. It is of little importance what those of us sitting on the Opposition Benches may think or say, but it is of vital importance what the Government intend to do. Without striking a party note I desire to know from the Government exactly what they propose to do in regard to this question. Of course, I assume that they are as anxious for national security—the expression used in the Amendment—as any of us can be, that they desire international peace just as we do; and I suppose I may assume that they believe, as we do, that it has got to be attained through international agreement. If that be so, there is a large measure of agreement already, and the only question is as to the method and the speed of trying to secure it.
I notice a significant expression in the Amendment. It urges the Government to take the initiative. I respectfully submit that the initiative has already been taken. It has been taken by Russia. I recognise that the Russian proposals go far beyond that which is before the House at the present moment, but, as the greater comprises the less, so, therefore, the matter now before the House is comprised in that initiative. My anxiety, and, I believe, the anxiety of the country, is to know what attitude the Government are going to take up towards that initiative when it comes up for consideration, as I believe it will, at Geneva next month. Various views are taken in regard to it. With the permission of the House, I would like just to quote one paragraph from a letter which appears in to-day's "Manchester Guardian." It represents a point of view which is shared by many. It says:
To question the sincerity of the Russian proposals will not save our face. Even if we assume that Mr. Litvinoff feels confident that we will not accept them, and his
object is only to call our peace bluff and expose us as a warlike State, the fact remains that he will succeed unless we do accept them, and thereby hoist him with his own petard if his country does not make its proposals good.
What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Here are definite proposals coming from a great Government. I do not know whether they are sincere or not, but they are very important proposals. Whatever one likes to say, they include a great initiative, and, therefore, I think we have a right to learn from the Government, whatever their view may be, what that view really is.
How are the Government going to approach this Disarmament Conference which is to take place at Geneva next month? The course which our Government takes may be vital, not only to the welfare of our own nation, but to the welfare of the world. To my mind, it is a great opportunity, and I want to know how that opportunity is going to be faced. If the answer is, "We do not accept the sincerity of these proposals, and flout them and refuse to consider them," I, for one, submit that that will be a fatal mistake for our Government and our country to perpetrate. I think that the only way, whatever may be the facts behind these proposals, is to assume their sincerity and probe them to the very bottom, to see what is in them which will help to promote the international peace that we all desire. I sincerely trust that the instructions which will be given to our representatives at this vital and important Conference next month may be far more direct and far more helpful than, apparently, were those which were given to Lord Cecil some time since, and of which he himself complained in the House of Lords. Our representatives there will be governed by what the Government tell them as to what they are going to do.
I am not going to repeat what has been said here before, but we all believe in peace, we all long for peace. Here is an opportunity, as I see it, in the direction of peace. I want to know from the Government what action they are going to take in reference to these proposals. I think that where the term "initiative" comes in practically, as affecting our nation, is that it is the initiative that our Government will take towards those proposals of Russia. If our Government
is afraid to treat them seriously, to see in them an opportunity of conserving world peace, other nations will do the same, and possibly a great international arrangement may be prevented. I am not hoping great things, but I am hoping something. I appeal to the Government, and I urge them to do all that in them lies, at this opportunity, to promote international peace by international agreement. I want them to realise that we look to them with intense anxiety. As I have said before, this is not a party question. All of us take our part in the country in expressing our view, but I very much hope that in discussing this question we shall not look at it from a party standpoint, but from a national standpoint, all of us acting together to promote our country's welfare through securing international peace.
I close as I commenced, by saying that my aim is not to attempt to make a speech; perhaps I am too old to think that speeches are of much worth. I do want to know what the Government are going to do, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all regard with something approaching affection, if he will allow me to say so, will feel able tonight to take us, so far as his duty allows, into his confidence. This is a matter of vital interest to us all. I know, by personal conversation with many people, the intense anxiety which is felt in this country as to what is going to happen. There is not a man in this House whose heart is not stirred when he thinks of the great War through which we passed; there probably is not a man in this House who in his own home does not look at a vacant chair. We want to make it absolutely certain that our boys did not die in vain, and the only way to show that they did not die in vain is so to carry on our proposals as to prevent war from ever happening again. It is with that intense longing that I am supporting this Amendment, not in any spirit of antagonism to the Government, but to give them all possible support in the direction which the Amendment indicates. I earnestly trust that, before this Debate closes, we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman, as the mouthpiece of the Government, something which may give us heart and may give us hope that they are actively determined to do all that in
them lies to promote international peace by international agreement.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: I believe that the attitude of the three parties in this House towards disarmament is not divided by a very wide margin. I believe that, so far as one can sum it up, the difference between the two sides of the House is that we on this side have the responsibility at the present moment, while hon. Gentlemen opposite have not. Therefore, it is the easier for them to say, "Go on; go ahead; disarm." But we have to think of the future, we have to balance in our minds whether we dare take the risk; and, so long as other nations have armaments, it is a risk to set the lead and disarm before other people. Which is right, I believe history alone will prove. It may prove that we shall get that greater disarmament which we all hope for within the next few years; on the other hand, it may be proved in years to come that we should have been very unwise to reduce our armaments any further than we have done. I hope that that may not be so, and that we may not be wrong in keeping our armaments at their present strength. I hope that this Government will not seek popularity by running undue risks in setting the lead and disarming before other nations.
The Debate to-day seems to have run on very normal lines. I remember that in the Naval Debate last year one critic called attention to the fact that after a certain stage in the Debate there was a dismal procession of ex-naval officers making their annual speech. I admit I was one of the dismal procession. I would put in one word on behalf of the ex-naval officer. It may be that we do not make very lively Debates but our early training did not encourage us to argue and to debate but merely to obey. It for instance, a midshipman showed early signs of argument and debate with superior officers he was more inclined to meet a rope's end than anything else. Sometimes I think, after having listened to very long speeches in this House, there is a good deal to be said for that system.
I should like to add to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico)—if every speech in this House was as interesting as his are what a much pleasanter place this would be—that we should have one Debate
every year dealing with all three fighting services, both in relation to disarmament and in relation to relative expenditure. Even as a naval officer I cannot be quite sure and easy in my mind that our expenditure is adequate as between, say, the defence of London and the defence of our trade routes. It is deplorable that these Debates should get into such a narrow rut as they do every year and, although I do not think we should achieve very much, I believe it is in the interest of the nation that we should at any rate have one big Debate every year in which the best brains and the best speakers of all three parties should take part and that the whole question of the relative expenditure of the three fighting Forces should be thrashed out in rather more detail and perhaps in a better way than it is at present.
Next, I should like to remind the House that at no time in the history of this country have we ever found that we have too many cruisers. On the contrary, whenever a crisis has come we have found ourselves short of them. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment gave some very powerful arguments for adding to our cruiser force rather than diminishing it. He asked what is the use of having one cruiser to every 2,500 miles? It is better to have one cruiser to that than to every 3,000 miles. I could not see the logic of his argument. To talk of cruisers in that relation is rather misleading, because it, gives a picture of a cruiser hustling about for 2,500 miles looking for an odd enemy. The way cruisers will be used should the worst occur is in guarding convoys of merchant-men. What saved this country towards the end of the last War was the convoy system as much as anything else, and that is where cruisers will be so useful. Although the air machine is developing very rapidly it cannot yet hover, and it cannot stay out in all weathers over the Atlantic, and although air defence may be necessary as these convoys approach the country, when they are hundreds of thousands of miles away the cruiser is as necessary to-day as it has ever been in our history.
A good deal has been written on the subject of the staff of the Admiralty. Perhaps I have not quite that sympathy
with the Admiralty that I might have had I ever served there, but as one who was out in the War the whole time I have the feeling that even now there may be a surplus of people at the Admiralty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary to keep their eyes open when they are going through the corridors for redundant people who may be about. I have a feeling that when the dreams of the right hon. Gentleman opposite are almost fulfilled and the Navy is reduced to one man he will be found at the Admiralty. Whatever may be done, I hope we shall reduce the size and the armament of ships. I would not mind going back to wooden ships if every country would agree to it, but I hope, whatever party is on these benches, they will see to it that the finest material in the world, namely, our naval officers and men, are provided with the very finest equipment.

Mr. TREVELYAN: This time last year a similar Amendment was put down and spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). It was not then used to attack the Government, but, for the purpose of suggestion and exhortation, to ask them to take a bold course and give a lead in the coming Coolidge Conference at Geneva. The words my hon. Friend used were these:
We want the First Lord of the Admiralty to got in first this time and to make a speech which will stagger humanity and send him down to history as one of the greatest naval revolutionists of the world.

An HON. MEMBER: Impossible.

Mr. TREVELYAN: There is nothing more impressive than a man acting well in a role in which we are not accustomed to see him. I regret that I was not able to hear the First Lord's speech to-day, but I am told he said my hon. Friend ought to be satisfied with what he attempted to do at Geneva. I shall be very much surprised if my hon. Friend is satisfied. Events turned out, as a matter of fact, at Geneva worse than our doubts. Not only was there no large and striking offer made by the British Government, but the conference failed lamentably. The First Lord is accustomed to say, if only he could have had his way, this country would have been greatly advantaged and he would have saved the British taxpayer some £50,000,000 in a year. When you look
at what he actually would have been able to do, the saving would not have begun until 1931, and when it did begin it would have been spread over 10 years. The £50,000,000 was, I think, the main saving which he promised the country, but that is spread over a long period of time. That was not what the country was expecting if the conference had been a success, and the country generally does not look to what happened last year with the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman and some of the members of the Government. At any rate, the policy of the Government does not suit many moderate people of their own party, who are disappointed and apprehensive just as much as we are.
The most formidable political happening of the last year in our home politics has been the resignation of Lord Cecil of Chelwood from the Government. With his great international position he is one of the two or three men who stand out, trusted not only in their own country very largely, but among the nations of Europe, quite apart from any authority which he exercised at the League of Nations when he was the representative of this country. It is a very severe thing that the man who is recognised in England as the greatest international authority should deliberately have left this Government because it so utterly failed in bringing disarmament any nearer. If we use severe words in condemnation, they cannot be more severe than those of Lord Cecil himself. He said:
The impression has been produced that the British Government were lukewarm in their desire that the Commission should lead to a successful result.
It seems to me that there is a very formidable situation. The failure of the Coolidge Conference is capable of becoming the most portentous event in the career of this Government. A new race for armaments is threatening to begin between ourselves and the United States of America. New war is spoken of freely in more aggressive and less cautious quarters both here and on the other side of the Atlantic. Who can see the end? The question that the House ought to be considering to-night is this: Is it to be the beginning? Is the situation to be the beginning of a tragedy, or ought it to be a warning to us to make desperate efforts to avoid it?
What we are practically asking the Government is for a total change of policy, of which this Amendment represents one-half. If we are to approach to international security and peace, it is necessary that there should be a double line of advance. We should all admit that disarmament alone is an impossible policy if it is unsecured by a political system for the supremacy of arbitration and law between nations. Disarmament alone is not enough. We had earlier this afternoon a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), who said, "You cannot ask us to reduce the effectiveness of the British Navy until you can provide for us a guarantee for our existing possessions all over the world." Precisely, and we do not pretend that you can have disarmament unless you also have an international guarantee between the nations that law will maintain what force is now hopelessly trying to maintain. That is on the one side. On the other side, security through arbitration and law is unattainable if there continue to exist these huge armaments which are utilisable by immoral Governments and panic-stricken peoples. Therefore what we on this side of the House say is that there must be a double line of advance—real steps taken towards disarmament which are convincingly big, real steps taken towards arbitration, and an all-in arbitration, which will convince the world that law can take the place of force. The two processes must go on at once. Our complaint is that at the present time we do not see the Government moving in either direction. We cannot see that they are doing either in any effective degree.
This year we have got to enter upon new relations with the United States of America. The old Treaty falls in, and our view is that we ought to propose an all-in arbitration treaty with America, keeping no subjects out of consideration. I know there will be those who say that we should get no response from the United States. I do not believe that for a moment. It is quite true that there are two currents of opinion in America at the present time. They are both above the surface, and you may estimate which you think the more important. There is the blatant, militarist, boastful and hostile spirit exhibited in a great many American utterances. They want
a big navy to whack the world. That is one side of America. But it is a very much more important thing that there is an entirely different spirit in the White House of America. Since President Wilson issued his great declaration to the world during the War, there has been no more important document that has come from America than the last note of Mr. Kellogg. It is a great document. It is addressed in the first instance to France, but it is obviously addressed to the rest of the world as well. It says that America is ready for a treaty having for its object the unqualified renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. This, perhaps, is the governing sentence in it:
 The Government of the United States desires to see the institution of war abolished and stands ready to conclude with the French, British, Italian, German and Japanese Governments a single multilateral treaty open to subsequent adherence by any and all other Governments binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another The precise language to be employed in such a treaty is a matter of indifference to the United States so long as it clearly and unmistakeably sets forth the determination of the parties to abolish war among themselves.
Is that not a great offer to the world? Is that not a great declaration, and would not that declaration, if put into force in treaties between the great nations of the world, make all cur navies superfluous? Let no one say that there is not the chance of a great advance when an offer of this kind comes from one of the greatest Governments in the world. It is a broad and a grand offer, and I say I am certain that it would undermine any mad navalism that there might be among the extreme elements in the United States. I say it is a, test for ourselves, if it be true, as the Foreign Minister said last year at that Box, that we have outlawed war in our hearts. Let us outlaw it then in law, and then outlaw it as we ask you to do here to-night in our programme.
The world at the present moment has no lead which it can follow to disarmament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) that a great offer has been made by Russia. Personally, I believe that offer to be sincere. But he and I must accept facts, and the fact is, that a great many of our fellow-countrymen do not
believe it to be sincere. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) said in our last Debate here is true. He said, rather despondently, "How unfortunate that no one believes the Russians!" If this House and if our people do not believe the Russians, it is up to our Government to provide a lead to the world which the world will regard as sincere. I suppose they think, as I think, that if our Government were to give a real big lead to the world, the world would believe it to be sincere. Take the Russian offer. Let us see whether the Russians do mean business. I do not mean by that, that I anticipate that our Government could make as big an offer as the Russian Government has made, because we should all know that on their part it was not sincere, and that therefore it was bluff. But they could make a lesser offer to test the world. They might even make an offer to the Russians.
A few years ago the Russian Government announced that they were prepared to make the Black Sea an unarmed lake, taking the analogy of the great lakes between Canada and the United States of America. They announced that if the other nations of the world would agree that their armed vessels should not in any circumstances penetrate into the Black Sea, they would "put down" all their armed vessels on the Black Sea. That offer was not accepted, but there is no reason why our Government should not call up that offer again and see whether it would not be accepted still. What I am thinking of rather is a proposal, not in relation to Russia, of course, such as we are making here. The lead in the direction of disarmament must come from one of the great nations, and it must come from one of the great nations with something big to give up. Somebody has to do it. It is no use our going on saying, "We are ready, if somebody else proposes something." Somebody has to make a proposal. Who is going to do it, and who better than ourselves? If we want France, if we want Italy to make serious military reductions, if we want them to do something with their armies, the only way in which we can induce them to do that is not by increasing our army, but by decreasing the thing which matters to us. Why should we not do it? Of what are we afraid in these propositions?
I wonder how many people want to keep capital ships. We keep capital ships because there are about three or four other nations which have these big monsters. Should we not be only too delighted to give them up? But somebody must make the offer first, if all the nations that have them are to give them up. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes said that the biggest ship is the capital ship. That is to say, that you can reduce, and reduce and reduce the size, and, provided everybody agrees to the reduction, you can cut down to your 10,000-ton cruiser, to your 5,000-ton cruiser, and, if there is no bigger one, that is the capital ship. What is the advantage of keeping your huge ironclad as it is to-day? You have already shown that you need not have your super-super-monster. Why, then, insist on your monster?
If we, as the greatest naval nation, were to come forward and say we do not want at all what are now known as capital ships, the chances are that the other nations who are interested in such capital ships would only be too delighted to follow. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about submarines?"] I gather there is no real difference of opinion about submarines. And why not abolish all
cruisers over 5,000 tons? Those who object to this policy have to answer the question: What are these armaments kept for now, and if no one has these armaments why should we want to keep them? We cannot get rid of them unless we, the great naval nation, show that we are ready to make a reduction, and if we are ready to make a reduction, believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, that the thirst for peace is so great in the world that when once we held up this new standard, we should find the nations of the world flocking to it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon Member who moved the Amendment, and who has not been here since, would have heard several compliments paid to him had he remained. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment is not in his place. The Debate began on a very mild, reasonable and unprovocative note, and it ended by the most gross exaggeration and absurd distortion that we have heard in any Debate of this kind, so far. The
Mover of the Amendment said that he was moving a token Amendment, meaning that it was a sort of academic proposal which he wished to put before the House. He began with many compliments to the Navy, but they became rather empty compliments as the speech proceeded, but the tone of his remarks was one of which no one could complain. He asked, first of all, whether we had not learned any lesson from the War. A great many lessons have been learned from the War. The Admiralty learned a great many lessons from the War, and the Conservative party learned a great many lessons from the War. There is one lesson which, I think, most of us learned from the War, and that was that at one period of the War we were within a very short distance of starvation, and many of those who felt that danger then are determined that we shall not run that risk, if it can be avoided, another time.
The hon. Member then proceeded to say that he complained very much of the size and the elaborate character of the Navy Estimates. He held the book in his hand and said: "This is not what one would call a best seller." I do not complain of that. He must not complain if the book is of such a size, because it is owing to an endeavour on our part to give the House as much information as possible. If he and his Friends will be content in the future to take the word of myself and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, without any figures at all, we shall be very glad to meet him in that direction, and we shall be very grateful for the economy and the staff at the Admiralty will be glad.

Mr. DUNCAN: It could then be done in five minutes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It could be very quickly done, and nobody would be any the worse. The hon. Member then dealt with a theme which we have heard so often in this House. He referred to the bureaucrats. He said that the bureaucrats spoiled the Geneva Conference. It used to be said that it was the Admirals who spoiled the Conference, now it is the bureaucrats. The only alternative to that and the only change that could be made, and one which might meet his wishes, would be that instead of taking people who know something of what they are talking about, you should send people who are qualified by their total ignorance.
I do not subscribe to that opinion. I prefer to go with sensible men, who know their subject, rather than go with people who may be very good at natural history or some other subject, but who know nothing of this subject.
The hon. Member went on to say that one of the reasons of the failure of the conference at Geneva was that I did not ask for a reduction, of armaments in the proper spirit; that I only said that I asked for what would produce economy and retain security for this country. He said that that was a very improper way of approaching the subject, because it should have been approached in a much more theoretic way, and that I am to blame on that ground because the Conference was not successful. I would remind the hon. Member that I did not open the Conference. It was opened by the American delegate, and he enunciated three cardinal principles, with which we were in profound agreement. Those principles were (1) the elimination of competitive building, (2) that we should seek to secure defence and not aggression and (3) that we should study economy. If it is wrong to seek security and economy and if that was what spoiled the Conference, then it was spoiled before I began to speak.

Mr. DUNCAN: That was not so.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That it was not spoiled? Those were the three cardinal principles.

Mr. DUNCAN: You agreed to them.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Of course I did. Then why am I to blame for the Conference breaking down upon something to which I agreed? The hon. Member also ridiculed the idea that we asked for only 70 cruisers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. A. M. Williams) said quite rightly that it was better to have some than none at all. The Mover of the Amendment also proceeded to discuss the great advantage of warfare in the air. According to him, we have no chance in the future against aircraft. He said that the aircraft never miss anything they shoot at, but that we, the Navy, nearly always do. The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir P. Sassoon) is present, therefore I will not enter into a discussion on that subject, but I feel sure that he will agree that despite the great advance in aircraft they are
not infallible yet, and we still require the Navy.
The Seconder of the Amendment, whose speech delighted us very much, complained that bad feeling had been caused by the failure of the Conference, on ill-founded suspicions. There I agree with him. I think the bad feeling was not caused so much among those who took part in the Conference but by those who were interested in party politics in this country or on the other side of the Atlantic, and who were very anxious to make a case against somebody who was politically opposed to them. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me a question, which I had hoped to answer in his presence. He asked me why we built large crusers to begin with, and, having done so, why did we made a proposal at Geneva to limit the size of cruisers? The reason why they were built at the beginning was because at the Washington Conference 10,000 tons was fixed as the maximum size, and, as the hon. Member for Keighley has often said, the maximum becomes the standard, and it is only by lowering the maximum that you can get a reduction. We built those ships—the Labour Government built some of them and we built others—because other countries were doing it. Therefore, it became a necessity for us to have ships of equal strength with them.
I think it was a great mistake that the Washington Conference fixed so high a tonnage figure as 10,000 tons and so high a calibre of guns as 8-inch guns. If only the conference had fixed the tonnage lower and the calibre of the guns lower we should have had very little trouble now. It was in order to come down from that that we made the proposals which we did at Geneva. That was the reason why we proposed that a strict limit, as in battleships, should be applied to these large cruisers, and that after that limit had been fixed no other cruiser should be built except those of a smaller kind. There is not one man in this House who will disagree with that; we all agree with it. Therefore, it is no sign of inconsistency on our part to say that because we found other nations laying down large 10,000 ton cruisers we had to begin doing the same ourselves, and that when we got
the opportunity at the Conference, we tried to persuade other countries to lower the maximum of cruiser tonnage.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, at the Washington Conference, the British representative advocated a 10,000 tons cruiser?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know; I was not at Washington. I believe that the British representative there accepted that, because it appeared then that there was a danger of losing the whole of the agreement on battleships if settlement was not arrived at on cruisers. Therefore the Conference accepted that, really without very much consideration. But I am not blaming him or the Americans or anyone else for not agreeing to a lower standard there. I was pointing out that in the light of history one sees what an advantage it would have been if such a standard had been fixed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the first keel for this new type was actually laid in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know the exact date, but certainly authority was given by other Governments to lay down these large cruisers before we began. Anyhow, hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot get out of the fact that they were the first people to do it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman made that statement this afternoon. I did not rise at the time to correct him, but I would say now that he is conferring upon us an honour to which we are not entitled. We did not start that policy. When we came into office it had already been decided by the previous Tory Government, and in the Estimates prepared by the previous Government, of which I took charge, there was provision for eight cruisers and we reduced the number to five.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It may be quite right to blame the Government that preceded that of the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact remains that the Labour Government were responsible and
accepted five-eighths of the programme of the previous Government. It is no use trying to avoid that fact. I do not want to make any undue capital out of it, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must abide by the decisions that they took, and very rightly took, at that time. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) took me severely to task for not having carried out the instructions given to me with so much kindness and good temper by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) this time last year. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley last year, and I have refreshed my memory about it since. I remembered it very well at the time, because when he made his speech I knew what we were going to propose at Geneva, and he did not. My tongue was tied, and, I was very much interested, as he proceeded, to find how very closely his suggestion coincided with what we were going to propose ourselves at Geneva. He did not say: "You must abolish everything at once; you must abolish the whole Navy." He said we could bring about disarmament only gradually, and the first step for us to take was to lower the maximum all round. That is the proposal that we did make at Geneva, and we have not got the thanks that we should have had from the hon. Gentleman, who thinks he is the author of the scheme.
When one reads this Amendment there is a good deal of it that coincides almost exactly with what we did. I have been told that I was to go in first at Geneva and stagger humanity by becoming a revolutionary First Lord or something of that sort—no, not a Bolshevist. That was what I was to do. I pointed out to the hon. Member that, much as I would have liked to have won the toss and to have gone in first, that did not depend on me. As it turned out I went in second, and the American delegate went in first. But as soon as I got the opportunity I did make proposals very similar to what the hon. Member sketched out in his speech. But the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle entirely misrepresented what these proposals were. He says: "Oh, it amounted to a saving of only a paltry £50,000,000. What is the good of that? Fifty million pounds saved 10 years hence is so visionary a
thing that no one really cares twopence about it." He did not recall that in following out the advice of the hon. Member for Keighley I proposed that, every cruiser in future should cost £1,000,000 less, and that that saving would begin to operate front the first, moment the agreement was signed. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that we proposed to limit and reduce the size of other categories of ships, again saving on each head. In fact, he did not give me the credit of doing what I did at Geneva, and of course he does not want to. But in a very dramatic, and I may say in a rather tragic way, he said, when he asked us why we did not propose to abolish the Navy altogether, "Are you afraid of abolishing the Navy?"

Mr. DUNCAN: Hear, hear! You are afraid of nothing!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Five minutes before the right hon. Gentleman had told us that the world was full of immoral Governments and panic-stricken people. Those are the words he used; I took them down. If that be true, surely there is something of which to be afraid: But let us for one moment consider this Amendment carefully. It says:
International peace can only be assured by international agreements for a substantial all-round reduction in naval armaments.
That is exactly what I proposed at Geneva. Accordingly the Mover of the Amendment urges the Government to take the initiative in making proposals for the abolition of capital ships. Well, I did take the initiative in making proposals about capital ships, not for their abolition, but for the reduction of their size and the extension of their lives. So up to a point, what we proposed at Geneva falls in with the aspirations of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN: Then you will vote for it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If other people are going to do it, I am prepared, as I said at Geneva, to do it.

Mr. DUNCAN: No, I mean vote for the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I am pointing out is that the Amendment is practically
what I proposed at Geneva, and hon. Members opposite are blaming me for its not having been accepted by someone else. Then we are to abolish submarines. I said at Geneva, and the British representative said it also at Washington, that we were perfectly ready to agree to the abolition of submarines if other nations would agree. There, again, I am entirely to blame, according to hon. Members opposite, for not having followed out the very words of this Amendment. The last words are:
and for the restriction of the maximum tonnage of cruisers to that necessary for police purposes.
I do not know what is meant precisely by "necessary, for police purposes," but that is the principle generally on which we went at Geneva. If we could stop building these large cruisers from the point we have reached now, we could afterwards build only small cruisers to take their place. This Amendment, except for the fact that it mentions the abolition of capital ships, which are sometimes called battleships, embodies what we actually did propose at Geneva, and hon. Members say this because they want to have here a stick with which to beat the Government. Because they proposed something at Geneva in almost the identical terms of the Amendment they are now blaming us—simply because the Government did not get it accepted. It is a very curious thing that they should blame those who made these proposals, which they want to have accepted, rather than those who did not accept them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) and right hon. Members opposite made a great outcry about the dangers confronting this country. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said the whole world is longing for international peace. Of course, we all agree with that; and not only that, we have got it.
Why all this panic and outcry? Hon. Members opposite say that the failure of this Conference was the greatest tragedy that ever happend, yet President Coolidge says that he perfectly ready to further consider the question of limitation. So are we, and nobody in their senses supposes that there is any danger of war between us. The greatest danger is when hon. Members make such absurd specehes
as that made by the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle to-night. Why do they imagine that everybody wants war except themselves? What evidence have they for that?

Lieut.-CommanderKENWORTHY: The evidence of history.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The evidence of self-righteousness. That is the only evidence which can justify observations such as those. Much has been said about the failure of the Geneva Conference and great efforts have been made to father that failure on His Majesty's Government. What is the object of that? Is it with the object of doing this country good amongst the nations of the world? Is it with the object of making peace more certain and the horrors of war more distant, that hon. Members picture this failure as being such a tragedy that we are shouting war at one another across the seas? Is that really the object of these protestations?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is for every nation to deal with its own Government, and we can only deal with our own Government which we do not think is very much in favour of peace.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not the Leader of the Opposition. What I was asking was, let anyone say with what they disagree with our proposals at Geneva.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Lord Cecil of Chelwood said he did not agree.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, he agreed with everything I proposed at Geneva.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And the Cabinet vetoed it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Let hon. Members say in what particular the Government is to blame in the proposals they made at Geneva.

Mr. J. HUDSON: You were lukewarm and never meant them.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it likely that I should on behalf of His Majesty's Government make proposals at Geneva if I had been lukewarm about them?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Lord Cecil of Chelwood said so.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: According to the hon. and gallant Member, Lord Cecil of Chelwood said that there was some kind of agreement which we could have got at Geneva. What was the agreement that was possible to get at Geneva which hon. Members opposite would have accepted?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Let us clear this matter up. I made the charge against the right hon. Gentleman. One of the statements made by Lord Cecil of Chelwood was that there was a difficulty as to whether the new cruisers should have 8-inch guns or 6-inch guns. We wanted 6-inch guns and the Americans wanted 8-inch guns. A compromise was reached on 7-inch, and Lord Cecil of Chelwood said the Cabinet vetoed it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The facts are that no compromise was reached at all on 7-inch guns; and that is exactly the sort of thing for which I want to bring people to book. I ask hon. Members opposite to tell me what the Government could have proposed at Geneva. We put forward one proposal, and when it was not agreed to we then tried to secure agreement on another. We met Japan on every essential point. We made proposal after proposal. I do not blame the United States for refusing. They have a perfect right to hold their own views about their defence, in the same way as we have a perfect right to hold our views about our defence. But what I desire to say is this, that not one hon. Member opposite can say that they did not agree with everything we proposed at Geneva, and not one of them can tell me what agreement was possible at Geneva which we did not consider and try.
If that be the case, I ask them not to pretend that the failure to reach agreement at Geneva is a great tragedy that is going to lead to war. We discussed most frankly all the aspects of this question without any ill temper or ill feeling, and we agreed on nearly every point except one, that of the cruisers, as far as I know. Let hon. Members opposite do something to help this country to get further opportunities for discussing limitation, as I am perfectly certain it is open to the three countries, and also European countries, to meet together, not
perhaps immediately, but in the course of a comparatively short time, and do something further in the direction of limitation. But every step in that direction will be spoilt and vitiated if hon. Members in this House try to pretend that we have done something which has only made antagonism between this country and America, which does, not exist. That is the way to do harm. Let them be generous and just and say that our proposals were perfectly right.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman has cleared up one point about the 7-inch guns, and he is in direct conflict with his colleague, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? Would he have got success had he been allowed by his own Cabinet to agree with the Americans for mathematical parity? Once agreement was reached with America, what did it matter how many cruisers the Americans built? That is our point. If we got agreement between the two, every additional American cruiser would be an extra safeguard to the peace of the trade routes of the world. Why was the right hon. Gentleman not allowed to agree, on mathematical parity, and to let America build great or small cruisers as she liked? What is the answer to that?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is that the question of parity was never raised at the Geneva Conference and I had not an opportunity of expressing my opinion at any of the sessions of the Conference on the subject. The reasons why we could not accept the proposal for the 25 cruisers of 10,000 tons, out of a total tonnage of 400,000 tons, were first, that it would not have been a limitation of armaments at all and that was the reason why the Conference was called, and, secondly, it would have left us so few cruisers of the smaller kind that our security would have been impaired.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in his second speech at the second plenary Conference, he made no mention of parity and did not definitely say that this country accepted mathematical parity with the United States?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I certainly never used the word "mathematical." In what
I said—not I think in the Conference—I never challenged the right of America to build an equal number of ships with our own. America already has ever so many more destroyers than we have and more submarines. When you talk about parity you must be careful to know what it means. If it means parity of numbers, and one country having larger ships than the other, then it is not equality. I do not think this question is one which can be laboured now. The point really is that there was a declaration made in this House on the subject which I repeated or circulated at Geneva and that was the basis on which the Government proceeded. It is, I think, printed in the speeches but at any rate it was made in this House and everybody heard it here. That was the attitude taken up by the Government on parity, but it was never discussed after that moment at Geneva or in any of the plenary Conferences

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I think the First Lord has been unfair to the Opposition in his reply. We have not been criticising the details of the proposition which he put forward.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle did.

Mr. SMITH: As I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle, he has been suggesting what is the real problem involved in the Government's policy. We have been discussing mainly three very definite questions arising from that policy. The first is the question of parity and what is to be understood by parity. Very large numbers of people are being drawn to the conclusion that we are receding from the position which we took up in 1923, and I think it is clear that the Government have been speaking with two voices on the subject. In the second place, we have been saying that the Conference broke down, because the whole question of the freedom of the seas had not been faced up to and explored before the conference. In the third place, we have been saying that in our judgment a reason for the breakdown was that the special plea which the Government are putting forward for the bread line, is not a well-founded argument.
In view of the great importance of these questions and of the fact that the Washington Conference arrangements have to be reconsidered in 1931, we are asking the Government in this Motion, in the first place, thoroughly to explore the whole question of parity and what we understand by parity, secondly, to explore the question of the freedom of the seas, and, thirdly, to make allowance for the fact that, if we are to put forward special pleas in the name of a bread line, it is competent for the Americans also to put forward special pleas. If the Americans are not entirely dependent for

45 weeks in the year for bread, they are dependent for rubber, manganese, tin, and a large number of other materials without which their security could not be maintained. It is on these grounds of policy that we have intervened in this Debate, and it is most unfair on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty not to face up to these questions and assure us that the Government are going to deal with them.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 109.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[10.22 p.m


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, R. G.
Little Dr. E. Graham


Alexander, E. E. (Layton)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Dorby)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Looker, Herbert William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lougher, Lewis


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Balniel, Lord
Forrest, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foster, Sir Henry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macintyre, Ian


Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F A.


Blundell, F. N.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene. W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Malone, Major P. B.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Burman, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harland, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Oakley, T.


Clayton, G. C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Perring, Sir William George


Cope, Major William
Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Couper, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Pilcher, G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rentoul, G. S.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ropner, Major L.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dixey, A. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Drewe, C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Smithers, Waidron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waddington, R.
Withers, John James


Steel, Major Samuel strang
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wcmcrsley, W. J.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwaten


streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wragg, Herbert


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Dr. T.



Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houshton-ie-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Rlley, Ben


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abortlilery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (fecistone)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lee. F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Strauss, E. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Sutton. J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Weltock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry



Groves, T.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T.W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pathick-Lawrence. F. W.
Whiteley.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Question put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

PERSONNEL.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That 101,800 officers, seamen, boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the sea service, together with 450 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Airforce Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Mr. GROVES: I desire to make a few observations on this Vote. Two years ago I raised a question on behalf of the lower deck men in the Navy. I do not
profess to be either a naval man or a military man, but I do profess that when people bring their grievances to me I present them to the proper quarter. Two years ago I brought before the First Lord of the Admiralty a question relating to space, to, so to speak, the housing accommodation of the men in the Navy. I happen to know that following that there have been certain changes and improvements. It may surprise the House to know how much money we have spent on the Navy since the Armistice. If hon. Members will look at page 9 of the Estimates they will see that, near enough, we have spent more than £60,000,000 a year, that is more than £600,000,000 upon the Navy since the Armistice, since we really made England fit for heroes to live in. The point I wish to put now is one I endeavoured to put before half-pasts
seven, but things are so carefully arranged that
back-benchers have to be very careful of the programme and watch their opportunity to get in on the wing.
On the evening last week when the House was counted out because of the interest shown by the supporters of the Government in the Debate, I brought up a question about men who are invalided from the Service and are not given a fair medical opportunity of putting their case in order that they may still remain among the numbers in Vote A. I wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty a kind and I hope a courteous letter, and received from him a courteous if not a kind reply. In referring to this particular case I will not mention the name of the individual, because I think it is very bad to read the name of the person in the local paper. He was invalided from the Service because the medical authorities certified that he had consumption. After he had been at home for some time he was taken to the London Hospital. The medical authorities at the London Hospital do their work without pay in the sense that doctor who wrote a certificate for the man had no reason for being other than honest in his medical decision when granting that certificate. The doctors at the London Hospital certified that this ex-seaman was suffering from sandfly, and I submit to Members of the House that sandfly is not the sort of thing you get in West Ham.
I agree with the praises which have been bestowed upon the men who comprise His Majesty's Navy. They have to face perils in peace time, and they are not very particular what they have to face in war time. I think that the Committee ought to see that the men who are incapacitated under conditions which are due to war service or service abroad should be dealt with in a very generous way and not merely in a legal or Admiralty manner. The Parliamentary Secretary read a long list of Admiralty rules and regulations, and he would lead the Committee to believe that an ex-naval rating who was invalided for home would have some restitution, and some possibility of finding a friend to put his case before the Admiralty. I do not say that my hon. and gallant Friend deliberately misled us when reading from the document. In one case, I made representations
that the doctor of the London Hospital should be seen by the medical authorities of the Admiralty, and I believe, if the Admiralty had taken the kindly lead I gave them, that the man I have referred to might have been still alive. This poor man died in the London Hospital, and the certificate which was given in this case by the London Hospital authorities was that the man had died from sandfly.

Dr. DAVI ES: Nothing about consumption?

Mr. GROVES: I do not want to make any fuss about this case, and I am prepared to say no more about it if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he is prepared to receive representations about it. I think this case has been very badly treated, hut of course it does not prove that all cases of invalided men are treated brutally. I am putting the case on behalf of a man who died from a complaint which he contracted in the East. I know that the mother of the boy went to the Admiralty and made a claim. My point is that when a man is invalided from the Navy on account of service rendered in the East the relatives should not be put to the trouble of having to go to the Admiralty to make all these inquiries when the Admiralty, through its medical advisers, is perfectly acquainted with all the circumstances of the case.
I see that the First Lord has now returned. In order that he may not, owing to his absence, be without the information, may I tell him that what I am quoting from is a kindly letter from himself to me—more kindly than generous—dated 12th October, 1927, about a seaman. I wrote to him pleading the case of this seaman, who had been invalided from the Navy suffering from a complaint called sandfly. When I spoke last week I misquoted it, and called it "black fly." The doctors at the London Hospital said that this was a kind of disease that is contracted in the East. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and he sent me the usual reply, to the effect that the case had been carefully considered by the medical authorities at the Admiralty. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate is that the case was also carefully considered by the medical authorities at the London Hospital, and may I repeat that the people
at the London Hospital have no reason to give a decision against the Admiralty; they merely make a fair, impartial examination, and give a decision that would, I am sure, be fair to both sides if possible. They certified, in this case, that the man as suffering from sandfly.
If what we are so proud to call British justice is going to be given to men who may be invalided from the Navy because of their foreign service, why is not the medical evidence supplied by the local medical practitioner taken into consideration? As I said here last week, when a local panel doctor gives a certificate in the case of an invalided naval man, it is, I will not say derided, but certainly it is treated with disdain; it is not taken into consideration at all. I say that a local panel doctor who would have invalided ex-naval men under his care would be qualified to decide whether that disease was contracted at home or whether it was contracted abroad. Further, in the case of many men who have been invalided from the Navy, their physical history previous to their joining the Navy would be more likely to be known to their local panel doctor than to the Admiralty's medical advisers. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, says in his reply to me that he regrets to have to say this. He writes:
In these circumstances I regret that this man is ineligible for an award of pension, and the gratuity of £14 which has already been paid to him represents the maximum compensation allowed in this case under the Regulations.
It is not the worth or the honour of the hon. Gentleman that I am condemning; it is the regulations which this House has either brought into being or acquiesced in, the regulations the hon. and gallant Gentleman read to us at about half-past seven this evening. He wrote and said he could not reconsider the case. It is a funny thing that since the man is dead and buried they have reconsidered it and granted some concession to the mother which I am very proud to have, nevertheless it upsets your theory. When you bring out these files and documents and tell us you must be guided by them, I say that in the year 1928 we really ought to have better treatment of men who have braved the perils of the sea, braver men than myself I admit. I have courage enou0 to take
my hat off to such men. I do not decry them, I admire them. But I decry the treatment that you people that cheer them hand out to them when they have been invalided in the service of the nation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this case into consideration and amend the regulations. I am sure no one on this side, and in my opinion very few on that side, would Oppose the emendation of the regulations, and if they did, it would only be in the interests of economy. I am sure we would not consider economy when we are dealing with the treatment meted out to soldiers and sailors invalided because of their service in the War.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the experience of the Estimates, both for the Army and the Air Force and to-day for the Navy, shows the absolute necessity of a new method of procedure. It is impossible on the Floor of the House to give that detailed consideration to the Estimates which in the interests of the men of the Services they deserve. I think this House ought to recognise that we must have something on the lines of the French and American committee system which can go into details of this sort upstairs instead of on the Floor of the House. However, one has to take the opportunity one has, and I have been waiting to raise a matter for months, and I have no other opportunity except to-night. It is the use of the Navy and naval personnel, not as volunteers but by orders, for the making of so-called war films. The new slogan should be "Join the Navy and become a film super." There is a statement in the Estimates of 1925, signed by the First Lord, to the effect that economy in the expenditure of fuel was necessary. It is common knowledge that the Fleet at present does not get its proper training at sea owing to lack of fuel. It rarely steams at full speed and manœuvres are severely restricted. In the interests of economy the efficiency of the Fleet is being reduced. But when it comes to making a super film for a private company at a ridiculous charge, out of all commercial proportion to the value of the services rendered, the whole Mediterranean fleet can go to sea to make the film "Coronel," and a large military and naval force is engaged at this moment at Malta in making a film representing
the Gallipoli landings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]
The reasons are twofold. One is that I consider this is derogatory to the dignity of the Service. For years there have been regulations prohibiting sailors and officers when in uniform from appearing on the music hall stage, but they are allowed to take part in making these films. They can be film supers. The men are not asked. I know one case of a particular film—and I can give the name in confidence to the First Lord—where orders came down from the Admiralty to a battle cruiser to lend her crew and officers and ward-room, lower deck and messes for making a film. She made an excuse because she was the senior ship there at that time, and she shuffled it on to one of her consorts. That ship developed some defect which necessitated her immediate docking, and she got off. Finally, the junior ship of the squadron had the indignity of making this film. When it was made the officers and crew went to Weymouth to see it first showing in public. They were one and all disgusted. I had that from one of the officers of the ship who told me. He was a senior officer in this ship which had to go through this ignominy. That is one reason, and the other I have already given. There is the shortage of fuel which is limiting the training of the Fleet at the present time, and yet the First Lord orders the whole Mediterranean squadron to go to sea to make a ridiculous footling film like "Coronel" which is historically inaccurate and undignified.
The other point is that these films encourage recruiting. At the present time, the First Lord can pick and choose entrants for the Navy, both officers and men. He can get the finest men, and he need only take about one in six of those who offer themselves. There is no need to encourage recruiting, for he can get the cream of the youth of this country of all classes. It is quite unnecessary for recruiting, but what it does is to encourage militarism. It is supposed to encourage recruiting, because all the horrible details are left out, and war is presented as a romantic chivalrous adventure. It is always the story of the gallant tar who returns to his girl and gets married.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: And why not?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Because in the War one out of three who enlisted in I914 as volunteers did not return to his girl. That is why. The hon. Member is a member of a very honourable profession, and she knows quite well that, while the world is a stage, the stage does not always accurately represent the world.

The CHAIRMAN: The First Lord is not responsible for that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was led away by the hon. Member's interruption.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: May I tell the hon. Member that is why I want to see things properly acted on the films.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should have thought that out-of-work actors and actresses might have done that better than the Navy. The picture of war given in these films is inaccurate. There are certain war films in existence such as "Arras" where one sees it in something of its realism, but the worst parts of such films are cut out before they are released for publication, because you dare not allow people to see war in all its reality. You rely on the hysteria of non-combatants who do not see it in its reality, and therefore you can keep up the illusion of the romantic chivalrous adventure, in which the only men killed are those shot through the head and where the hero always returns, as I say, to his lover. It is no part of the Navy's duty. I reinforce myself by a phrase of the last First Sea Lord of the Admiralty (Admiral Beatty). Speaking on the 10th November, 1925, he used the following words—he was, as a matter of fact, referring to the agitation to keep up certain redundant dockyards—"Is it intended that the Navy Estimates should include the expenditure of money for purposes extraneous to the maintenance of the Fleet? "May I ask the First Lord whether the making of a war film, so called, is necessary for the efficiency of the Fleet? There is no answer. The public do not really want these films. We have had evidence from the trade that only in London are they popular, and that in the provinces the people are
already tired of them. Under the Films Act passed last year, a quota has to be taken of British films and the only films of a correct size made to-day by British companies are War films.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Two per cent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but the quota continues to increase year after year. Therefore, a certain proportion has to be shown. The companies, and you cannot blame them, are offered a first-class commercial proposition—the use of the Fleet, warships, trained men for a really nominal charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day), who knows the business and the trade, can tell you that it is common knowledge in Wardour Street that the recompense paid to the Admiralty for the use of naval units and material is simply absurd and out of all proportion to the value. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a Division at this time of the night, but this is the only opportunity I have had to make my protest. I ask the Admiralty to stop this play-acting, this foolery in the Navy and this prostitution of the King's uniform for the purpose of freak films, which are intended to appeal to the worst instincts of human nature.

Commander BELLAIRS: I merely rise for the purpose of asking two questions of my right hon. Friend the First Lord. The first is in reference to a statement in the Paris "New York Herald," that the strengthening of the decks of American battleships has been the subject of a fresh protest on the part of the Government. I sincerely hope that that is not true. I think we had much better leave this alone. My other question is in reference, to a telegram which, I believe, is to be published in the papers to-morrow. I think it would be a great pity, if the telegram is inaccurate, if it were published. It is in reference to the "Royal Oak," and the statement that is to be issued to the Press is that the captain and some of the officers refused to sail under Rear-Admiral Collard and have been court-martialled and carried as passengers to Gibraltar. It is sure to excite a great deal of attention, and I
think that if the Admiralty cannot tell the House now, it ought to issue to the newspapers at the earliest possible moment the actual state of the case.

11.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May I switch off the Debate to the rather duller subject of the dockyards? We have heard that of the 33 ships being built, only 10 are being built in the Royal Yards. We feel this in the Royal Dockyards very severely, in view of the fact that we have no alternative work. As work is taken from us our overhead charges increase and, consequently, it is more difficult as time goes on to compete with private firms. Can the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me, in a few words, how he proposes to give work to the Royal Dockyards in the future?

Mr. KELLY: One hears a great deal in these days, particularly from members of the Government, that, in this country, when making purchases of any kind, the purchases should be British. I think the "Buy British Goods" campaign is one that goes to the hearts of members of the Government. The question I want to ask is, whether the Admiralty have a set purpose to give preference to American machinery. I ask that, in view of the fact that within recent weeks I have heard that inquiries have been made by the Admiralty for certain machinery of an expensive type, and that in sending out for it they have given a preference upon the American machine, which I could mention if need be, although I do not want to give it an advertisement. I would ask the First Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the policy of the Admiralty to give preference to American machinery?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will deal first with the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). It is a case in which, apparently, the opinion of the Admiralty doctors was not the same as the opinion of the doctors belonging to the hospital. As the hon. Member stated, the Admiralty medical authorities admitted their error and such reparation as was possible was carried out. It is obvious that you cannot always be infallible, and that medical experts may differ; but that does
not really prove anything one way or the other. I hope that from what I said in the previous Debate the Committee will realise that we have this matter very much to heart and that we are doing our utmost to see that everything is done that can be done for the benefit of the men concerned in case of invaliding.

Mr. GROVES: May I remind the hon. and gallant Member that the First Lord of the Admiralty wrote me stating that the case had been reconsidered by the medical authorities at the Admiralty and that, although the disability which resulted in the man's invalidity arose during the period of his service, it was considered that it was of constitutional origin. It was sandfly. The poor man died, and the right hon. Gentleman has made practically no effort at restitution.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. Member will get into communication with me we will look into the matter further and see how the position stands. With regard to the question of films, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the policy of the Admiralty is quite simple. There are three kinds of films. There is the historical film, which represents past events in naval history. There is the film which represents something which is actually going on now or has happened recently, such as a special voyage like that undertaken by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. And there are romantic films.
The Admiralty consider that it is advisable and good sound policy, and in the interests of the Navy, to see that, historical films are as accurate as they can be made, and, therefore, they see no harm, indeed they think it right to assist in the production of such films. The one to which the hon. and gallant Member referred so scathingly, I have often been told by those who have seen it, is an extremely good picture. I have not seen it myself, but I have certainly heard that stated. The "Battle of Coronel" was the one mentioned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen
the protests of Admiral Allen. who commanded a ship at the Battles of Coronel and the Falkland Islands?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not know what he protested for or against, but naval friends of mine who are perfectly capable of giving an opinion say that this is a first-class film. At any rate, we have done our best to make it accurate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ask the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: My name has been mentioned as having taken part in that action. I have seen the film. As far as it is possible to make a historical film accurate, that film is so.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Finally, there is the romantic film, which deals with supposed scenes of naval life, and that is the kind of film which many people hold it is desirable should be made as accurate as possible, because we do not want the Navy to be made ridiculous on a film or anywhere else. At the same time, certain officers think it undesirable that naval ratings and officers should be employed in that kind of film, and the view of the Admiralty is much the same. Therefore, in a romantic film we do not give the assistance that we do in the other two kinds. I would like the hon. and gallant Member to bear in mind, when he says that we waste money one way or another in utilising ships and ratings and officers in the production of films, that we do derive financial benefit from it, and that a good deal of the money goes to the sports committees of the Navy. I can see no earthly harm in it. On the contrary, I think it is all in the interests of the Navy that this assistance should be given.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the film "We are in the Navy now"?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I have not.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that, if he
wants to eliminate either anti-German propaganda or militarism, he ought to see that film and say what he thinks about it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not feel it my duty to visit films, in order to do away with militarism or anything else. I was asked two questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Commander Bellairs). The first question was as to a report about the strengthening of decks of American battleships. We have no information on the subject at the present moment. With regard to the trouble on the "Royal Oak," we have not yet sufficient information for me to give any answer or to make any remarks on the subject. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) asked about dockyard work. We have endeavoured to give such work as we could to the dockyards. I fully appreciate the difficulties and sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I hope he will realise that it is not possible for the Admiralty to invent work. We can only utilise such money as we have, and one of the penalties of the moment is that men cannot be employed in the same way as in the past. We are doing our best not to reduce the number of men more than we can help, and we shall keep the dockyards going to the best of our ability.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is not so much the amount of work that is going as the fact that of the work that is going the Royal dockyards are not getting their proportion, in view of the fact that private firms are doing much better than they were a few years ago.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has made that observation. As a matter of fact, the Royal dockyards are getting a larger proportion of the work now than they have for the last few years, and hon. Members who represent dockyard towns should bear in mind the fact that we have to consider the interests of the Navy and the interests of the country, and we must give work to other parts of the country. We cannot afford to neglect
the private yards but, nevertheless, we are doing our best for the Royal dockyards. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) with regard to machinery, it is not the policy of the Admiralty to employ foreign firms if they can help it. On the contrary, we do our best to encourage home firms, and the case which I fancy he has in mind is one in which we are doing our best to get the piece of machinery we require from a British firm.

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,445,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc. of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,805,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That Subhead B (New works, additions, and alterations) be reduced by £100,000."
I can explain briefly my reasons for moving this reduction. The expenditure up to date on the Singapore Dockyard is about £500,000 out of a total of £6,917,000. This year it is proposed to spend £200,000 on the dockyard, and want to reduce the expenditure by half. The total cost of the Singapore base is to be £9,750,000. One reason why I am moving this reduction is the development referred to by the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan)—the proposals of Mr. Kellogg to the French Government, which are, of
course, still going on. He proposes that there should be a five-Power Treaty, jointly and severally outlawing war between the countries. If we accept the invitation, which has been addressed to us as well as the French Republic, and outlaw war by a solemn treaty between this country and Japan, it is absurd to go on with Singapore. Until we see the outcome of the very important negotiations now in progress, we ought to slow down expenditure and, I think, a reduction of half is not unreasonable.
Other reasons are too well known for me to spend much time on them. There is an existing dockyard at Singapore which can take the largest sized cruisers now being built. At Hong Kong the local company is enlarging the present dockyard to take the largest battleships. At Esquimalt is a dry dock, which can take the largest battleships and at Sydney, is the dock at Cockatoo Island, which will take the largest cruisers—all in the Pacific. Therefore, I consider this new dock unnecessary. There is a dockyard already to deal with the work, and the Straits can be closed, in time of war, by means of submarines, mines, long range artillery and aeroplanes. The site is unhealthy and it is easy to attack it from the land, and it would be much better to have the main Pacific base at Sydney, where the Australian army would defend it, and it would be a useful recruiting field for the young manhood of Australia. Singapore on all these grounds is a mistake but it is a double mistake at the present time in view of the discussions which I have mentioned. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of saying that we should always employ British firms and buy British goods with Government money. The new floating dock is being towed out to Singapore by a Dutch company. I asked to-day how much the contract was worth but apparently it is not in the public interest to disclose the details. We may assume that it is a very considerable sum. I cannot believe that there is no British company capable of doing the work and we ought to have an explanation of why the contract was given to a Dutch company. Was it done to save money, and if so, what have hon. Members opposite to say about it? If there was no British company capable of doing
the work, it is high time we had a towage company and I suggest that it might be a branch of the Navy. It would be good training for officers and men and might be a good commercial proposition. We might begin a nationalised mercantile marine by embarking on a subsidised and Government controlled towage company. It is scandalous that, with the largest mercantile marine and the largest liners in the world, we have not tugs capable of dealing with work of this kind.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am sure the Committee listened with great interest to the reasons given by the hon. and gallant Member for reducing our expenditure on the Singapore base. I do not think the American proposals are sufficient to justify any great change in the policy that has been adopted and is being carried out as rapidly as circumstances will permit. With regard to the question of the floating dock, I should like to explain exactly what the situation is. The provision of the floating dock at Singapore has occupied the attention of the Admiralty for some little time, and anxious consideration has been given to the question. There were possibilities of constructing the dock in the East at some port nearer Singapore where a shorter journey would have been necessary by sea, but after very careful consideration the contract for the dock was placed in this country. We had to bear in mind the necessity for giving employment as far as we could to British workpeople. It is naturally advisable to leave the whole responsibility for the dock, including the towing to the site, to the contractors for the dock, who are required to connect up the sections of the dock after arrival at Singapore before handing it over complete to the Admiralty. Any other arrangement might involve the Admiralty in financial and other responsibility in the event of any accident unfortunately happening to the dock during transit.
Before entrusting the builders with the responsibility for the towing, the Admiralty made exhaustive inquiries into the position. Such a dock is a very large and clumsy structure for sea transport, and it can only be towed at a very slow speed. This involves, of course, great care in navigation in bad weather,
and very special knowledge is required by those who are undertaking the work. It requires a sufficient number of specially constructed tugs of large coal capacity for this long ocean voyage. The use of Admiralty tugs is out of the question, because of the necessity for meeting dockyard requirements. It was found, after very careful inquiry, that the only reliable organisation possessing the necessary qualifications and equipment was a Dutch firm, and the Admiralty accordingly placed the contract for the towing with the builders of the dock, bearing in mind the contractual considerations referred to, and the builders have sub-let the tow to the Dutch firm in question, having come to the same conclusion as the Admiralty that this is the only possible firm for this work.

Mr. AMMON: What firm was it that towed out a dock, which was somewhat larger, to Malta from these waters? It was a British firm.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot give that information to my hon. Friend off-hand.

Mr. AMMON: Obviously there are in this country some people who can tow a dock out to those waters.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is some distinction between Malta and Singapore, and I can only repeat what I have already said, that we did not want to utilise the services of a foreign firm, but after the most careful inquiry we found that we could not avoid doing
so.

Mr. DUNCAN: I happened to see that dock being towed out to Malta, and I thought the tugs made a very good job of it. The strange thing is this, that this dock is going to be insured. Whatever risk there is in it, could not the Government insure against it just as well

as the builders? In regard to the tugs and their coal capacity, you could get as much coal on the top of the dock as would supply the steam to take it out to Singapore and back again. I have been long enough in this House to remember the beginning of the operations at Rosyth dockyard. I do not know how many Members there are in the House who know the millions of money that have been spent in building and equipping Rosyth Dock. It is one of the biggest docks in the world, and where is it now?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Where is the German Navy now?

Mr. DUNCAN: You might as well ask me where my grandmother is£she is dead. What I am endeavouring to point out is that we are either to take seriously or jocularly the attempts that are being made by other countries in putting propositions before the Government for the elimination of war, and it is a monstrous thing that, in these hard times, when employers are complaining about the difficulty of getting orders, all this money should be spent. During my short time in this House, tens of millions of money have been sunk in Rosyth; it is at, a standstill, and what guarantee is there that within a few years, by the time we get Singapore Dock finished, it will not be exactly in the same position? Therefore, my hon. Friend is justified in calling a halt to this expenditure so that some serious effort can be made in response to the appeals that have been made to this country by other nations in the direction of peace rather than in the preparation for war.

Question put, "That Sub-head B (New works, additions and alterations) be reduced by £100,000."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 194.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Chariston, H. C.
Gosling, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)


Barnes, A.
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barr, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fenby, T. D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Hardle, George D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Scurr, John


Hayday, Arthur
Mackinder, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Hayes, John Henry
MacNeill-Weir, L
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Malone, C. L.'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.


Hirst, G. H.
March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Maxton, James
Snell, Harry


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Morris, R. H.
Stephen, Campbell


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, E. A.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Owen, Major G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Kennedy, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawson, John James
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. Ives)



Lee. F.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindley, F. W.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Livingstone, A. M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Charles Edwards.


Lunn, William




NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, captain D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. 'K.
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Atkinson, C.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W, P. Crawford
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, A. J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir George
Pennefather, Sir John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hammersley, S. S.
Penny, Frederick George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Philipson, Mabel


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pitcher. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burman, J. B
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cazalet, Captain victor A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Christie, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Ropner, Major L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye. F. G


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon. Major I.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colman, N. C. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Coupor, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Savery, S. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N,


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n S Kinc'dine,C.)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, Lewis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dixey, A. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streaffeild, Captain S. R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, Ian
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ellis, R. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard, W Lindsay
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waddington, R.


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Captain D. E,


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)




Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E.(Chest, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


waterhouse, Captain Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wragg, Herbert


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Womersley, W. J.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)



Question put, and agreed to.

VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.

Motion made, and question proposed,
That, a sum, not exceeding £4,062,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1928.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are now asked to take another Order dealing with a fresh subject. On this side we are not going to sacrifice our right to express our opinion on the Navy Votes in order that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be able to steal a march upon us by talking about sugar beet. When the Greeks come with gifts, we should look upon them with some suspicion. The amount of money required for victualling and clothing is £5,000,000, and on this Vote I want to refer to the question of supplying British meat to the Navy. I am not interested so much in agriculture, but I am interested in supporting the farmers in every possible way. May I point out that it is only on Christmas Day that the seamen of the Navy are allowed to have British meat? On every other day of the year they are fed upon chilled meat from the Argentine. That is most unfair to the farming community of this country. We can afford to spend £10,000,000 on Singapore, and surely we can afford to supply English meat to English lads and Scottish meat to Scottish lads. It is quite simple to provide Scottish meat, which is very excellent, for the Scottish seamen, and I see no reason why that should not be done. There used to be an article of diet supplied to the seamen known as salt pork, but for some extraordinary reason or other salt pork has been dropped and the only supply now is salt beef. I think that is a very great mistake, because salt beef has always been rather under a cloak in the Navy where it is known as "Fanny Adonis." The story is that

Adams had a domestic difference with his wife, and, after murdering her, he cut her up into small pieces and sent her out to sea in a salt beef cask.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see bow the First Lord of the Admiralty is responsible for that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will bring the responsibility to him in this way, that, since he has held his office, he has dropped salt pork altogether out of the seamen's dietary, and they only get salt, beef; and there is an old-standing prejudice against salt beef, because no One knows that Fanny Adams has now been safely eaten, and some unfortunate ship—

The CHAIRMAN: This is of historical interest, but I cannot see how the First Lord is responsible for it!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would rather go into this matter of salt beef as affecting the Navy than into sugar beet as affecting the farmer, and I was reinforcing my argument that, when fresh meat is supplied to the Navy, at least it ought to be British meat. All modern ships now have refrigerators, in which meat can be kept for weeks, and salt provisions are almost a, matter of, as you say, Mr. Hope, historical interest. Because meat can be kept in this way there is less waste, and that is all the more reason why British meat should be supplied. I hope that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent farming constituencies will support me in this matter. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) will not allow this insult to the Yorkshire farmers, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes
(Rear-Admiral Beamish), who represents a part of the country where the best mutton is produced, will also support me, because mutton is allowed to be served on, I believe, two days a week, or it used to be.
With regard to clothing, there is one matter to which I should like to refer,
and that is the kit of the newly-joined boy. Is he now allowed to have it made up for him, or is it still supplied ready made The old custom used to be that the cloth was cut up and made to fit the men, and that conduced, I think, to a very much better appearance. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during that unforgettable period when he was First Lord, suddenly thought it would be better if the men were supplied with "reach-me-downs"—ready-made clothing—and so they were not any longer encouraged to cut out their own clothes, and the boys were not taught to use their needles, as all good seamen should; they were not encouraged to cut out and make their own clothes, as they all did in the cid days. Have we returned to that system of the men making their own clothes, or do they still have ready-made clothing?
Then the First Lord spoke of the boys who are now going to be housed m a converted prison, which he is going to call the St. Vincent Home. If it is going to be named after an admiral, I should have liked it to be called the Sir Cloudesley Shovel Home, because Sir Cloudesley Shovel entered the Navy as a seaman boy, and rose to the highest rank, and to use his name for a new training establishment would show every boy that in his kit-bag he carried an admiral's flag—in other words, it should be open to any boy entering the Navy to-day to rise to the highest rank by merit alone. That, unfortunately, is very rare indeed to-day. The mates are only given that rank late in life; they become lieutenants still later, and it is very difficult for them to get promotion before their age takes them outside the promotion zone. We are getting a very fine type of young boy in the Navy now, well educated and from good homes, many of them the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of petty officers, and every facility should be given them, on their merits, to rise to commissioned rank, and instead of calling the new training home after Admiral Jervis, Lord St. Vincent, who was not our most successful admiral by any means, though it was a very glorious battle, I would rather have had the home called after Sir Cloudesley Shovel or Admiral Benbow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Kenworthy."] No; I want to commemorate one of the old seamen who
started before the mast and reached flag rank. In these days I should like to see more opportunities given for the youths of such good quality whom the First Lord has under his care to reach commissioned rank. That is my principal question on the clothing. Are the boys encouraged to make their own clothes, or are we to continue this very retrograde step of issuing ready-made clothing?
The other matter deals with mess traps—Subhead K, £81,000. Mess traps are the kettles, plates, dishes, bowls, cups and cutlery and everything to do with furnishing the table. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is recently married and knows what it cost him to set up in his own house with these things. There should, I think, have been a greater saving in mess traps because of the general mess system which is almost universal now. Ninety per cent. of His Majesty's ships have the general mess system. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many ships remain without the general mess system. When you had the whole ship's company divided into messes and all prepared their own food and took it to the galleys to be cooked, they needed more utensils, but now that you have the cooks under the Paymaster preparing the meals for the men in one general mess there should surely be a saving, and I think this sum of £81,000 is rather high, especially as there is an increase of some £6,000 on last year. [Interruption.] I presume all the mess traps are British. I have never thought of that question. With a smaller Navy and with other economies, some explanation should be forthcoming of this item. I should also like to know whether the Navy is supplied with British beet sugar or cane sugar.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no doubt spoken with great ability and has asked a great many questions. My only difficulty was that I could hardly hear him. If I miss anything in my reply, it is through inadvertence and lack of hearing power. It was almost impossible to hear what he said.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will write to you.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1927.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to his Majesty,

No. of Vote.
—
Deficits on Gross Expenditure.
Surpluses on Gross Expenditure.
Deficits on Appropriations-in-Aid.
Surpluses on Appropriations-in-Aid.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wage, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy, and Royal Marines, etc.
—
21,500
0
0
—
—


2
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
—
70,800
0
0
33,000
0
0
—


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
—
10,600
0
0
—
4,000
0
0


4















5
Educational Services
—
—
—
12,400
0
0


6
Scientific Services
—
—
—
12,600
0
0


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:















Section I. Personnel
—
25,000
0
0
—
33,000
0
0



Section II. Matériel
—
346,100
0
0
171,000
0
0
—



Section III. Contract Work
294,000
0
0
—
—
171,000
0
0


9
Naval Armaments
715,800
0
0
—
—
29,300
0
0


10
Works, Building, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
—
64,700
0
0
42,200
0
0
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
31,200
0
0
—
—
11,900
0
0


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
16,500
0
0
—
—
—


14
Non-Effective Service (Naval and Marine),Men.
—
40,800
0
0
—
—




1,057,500
0
0
579,500
0
0
246,200
0
0
274,200
0
0




Net deficiency on Gross Expenditure. £478,000
Net surplus on Appropriations-in-Aid. £28,000




Net deficiency to be voted £450,000"

CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1926.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,858 15s. 1d., he granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain, for the year ended 31st March, 1927:—



Amount to be Vote.


Class II.
£
s.
d.


Vote 15A. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
25,858
15
1

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with this Vote, in view of what we were given to understand?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): An arrangement has been reached under which we shall postpone this Vote.

to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Guinness.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee report Progress to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1928, the sum of £1,549,153 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, the sum of £163,962,700 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The Remaining Orders read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAEER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'Clock.